what's the deal on .40 SW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bullet penetrated Platt's upper arm at an angle, going through approximately 4" of muscle tissue before it made an unshored exit. It then re-entered the torso already expanded and penetrated another 8" or so, stopping just short of the heart.

So, given that performance, what would the equivalent penetration be in clothed gelatin--without the unshored exit and re-entry into the torso with the bullet already expanded--and how would that equivalent penetration compare to the FBI's current penetration requirement?

As nearly as I can tell, it would have easily met the current penetration requirements. Since the bullet penetrated enough to meet the current penetration requirements, it doesn't really make sense to blame the bullet for not penetrating enough, does it?

That aside, let's say I gave you the following information:
  • A gunfight involving 10 people took place.
  • Approximately 150 rounds were fired, four people were killed and 5 more were injured.
  • One person lost their sidearm and never fired a shot.
  • One person was armed with a long gun and fired about a third of the total rounds expended, accounting for half of the deaths and all of the injuries.
  • One person expended all six rounds in his revolver early in the fight and was incapacitated while attempting to reload with an injured hand.
  • One person lost his primary sidearm and only fired a compact backup handgun during the fight.
  • Everyone on the scene had the option of being armed with a long gun similar to what was used by the most effective person in the firefight, but most chose to rely only on sidearms in spite of the fact that they knew long guns would most likely be employed by some of the participants.
Then I gave you this analysis: The primary reason for the negative outcome was one bullet that should have penetrated 12.5 or 13" but only penetrated 12" or 12.5.

What would you say?
I have to say my response would have to be, "The purpose of a handgun is to fight your way to a rifle."
 
I'm curious to know of you have evidence to the contrary?

Nope, I sure don't. But from my perspective, a bigger hole equates to a larger surface area of blood vessel damage and therefore faster blood lose, resulting in faster incapacitation. That does seem logical to you, doesn't it?

So if anyone would like me to believe that is not in fact the case, I'd need some evidence to go along with it.

Seems a bit silly to note the absence of study or data to support a position when one has produced none of their own.

Does it? I'm not the one making a claim.

Did you not see the attached articles?!

My apologies. They were not there when I looked at you post. If they had been I most certainly would not have made such a comment. I will look at them. Thank you!

First, "stopping effect" would have to be defined. Second, there would have to be agreement on measures of merit for evaluating "stopping effect". Third, a compilation of data on those measures would have to be made. Then it would have to be analyzed. analyzed.

I suggest that the data necessary for the third cannot be found or verified.

This would be a fool's errand.

One can, on the other hand, ask for reports on observations from the field. Those would , of course, be more subjective, and they would necessarily combine "stopping effect" with other factors.

Kleanbore, you know as well as I do that stopping the threat is the primary goal of a civilian defender (or LEO) in a shooting. To say the 9mm is "just as good" must mean at stopping the threat, otherwise it is meaningless to even say it. If it's not "just as good...at stopping the threat" what are we even going on about?
 
Last edited:
a bigger hole equates to a larger surface area of blood vessel damage and therefore faster blood lose, resulting in faster incapacitation. That does seem logical to you, doesn't it?
No, not at all--not for self defense.

If a violent criminal actor starts from a nominal distance of seven yards and the defender draws and fires at a much closer distance at the attacker, who is moving at probably 180 inches per second, the attacker will not be stopped timely by loss of blood.
 
No, not at all--not for self defense.

If a violent criminal actor starts from a nominal distance of seven yards and the defender draws and fires at a much closer distance at the attacker, who is moving at probably 180 inches per second, the attacker will not be stopped timely by loss of blood.

If the attacker is running directly at you. What if they're shooting at you from cover?
 
But from my perspective, a bigger hole equates to a larger surface area of blood vessel damage and therefore faster blood lose, resulting in faster incapacitation.
So. how much faster? Enough to end the problem?

Reality is, neither cartridge will incapacitate an attacker unless the spine is severed. That bigger hole doesn't mean squat.
 
If the attacker is running directly at you. What if they're shooting at you from cover?
That's beyond my knowledge of forensic medicines, but I am pretty sure that the difference will not be material.
Reality is, neither cartridge will incapacitate an attacker unless the spine is severed.
Come now! Attackers are routinely stopped without having their spines severed.
That bigger hole doesn't mean squat.
I agree with that.
 
I encourage you to research it, honestly, it was and is fascinating...

Here, I'll give you some starters:

https://sofrep.com/gear/the-reasons-why-fbi-went-to-back-to-9mm/

https://www.policemag.com/341954/9mm-vs-40-caliber

Disappointing the same things I've been reading for many years.

I was hoping for some actual evidence. Datasets by cartridge, timing first hit to incapacitation. Or datasets by cartridge, giving average number of hits to incapacitation cross-reference by datasets allowing for average split times per cartridge.

But it's the same merry-go-round that doesn't actually prove anything. Oh well.

So. how much faster? Enough to end the problem?

Reality is, neither cartridge will incapacitate an attacker unless the spine is severed. That bigger hole doesn't mean squat.

I have no idea how much faster. Perhaps the internal surface area of a wound would tell us. Or perhaps we could do some crude math based on bullet diameter, to circumference and work out that a .45acp may produce 20% more internal wounding surface area than a 9mm, and then take a WAG.

Saying a bigger hole doesn't make a difference is just the same as say 9mm is just as effective. No evidence, but logic dictates otherwise.

ETA: As for a big hole not meaning squat @TarDevil , if that's the case, why does the FBI require a minimum of 150% diameter in a fully expanded bullet vs pre-expansion? Some reason other than making a bigger hole?

That's beyond my knowledge of forensic medicines, but I am pretty sure that the difference will not be material.

Oh I think it'd make a difference. If you put a hole in someone who's running out you, they may well get to you before they become incapacitated from blood lose. If that same person is behind cover and shooting at you, they're not trying to get to you at all. So providing you avoid getting shot (perhaps by also moving to cover of your own) they could well become incapacitated from blood lose, and are therefore stopped.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Disappointing the same things I've been reading for many years.

I was hoping for some actual evidence. Datasets by cartridge, timing first hit to incapacitation. Or datasets by cartridge, giving average number of hits to incapacitation cross-reference by datasets allowing for average split times per cartridge.

But it's the same merry-go-round that doesn't actually prove anything. Oh well.

You'll never get that. There are way too many variables. Where the bullet hit, penetration of the bullet, was the bad guy on drugs, what kind of drugs, alcohol, physical fitness of the bad guy, overall health of the bad guy, mental state of the bad guy, number of shots fired, different bullets hitting the same person... so on and so on.

If we studied 10 shootings, 5 with a 22lr and 5 with a 44 magnum... the 22lr could very easily come out showing to be the better "stopper" depending on the above factors. We all know that isn't the case.
 
I was hoping for some actual evidence. Datasets by cartridge, timing first hit to incapacitation. Or datasets by cartridge, giving average number of hits to incapacitation cross-reference by datasets allowing for average split times per cartridge
Read Post # 96, and try to understand it.

Just how do you think those 'datasets' might have been compiled, and by whom?

Or are you joking?
 
There are way too many variables. Where the bullet hit, penetration of the bullet, was the bad guy on drugs, what kind of drugs, alcohol, physical fitness of the bad guy, overall health of the bad guy, mental state of the bad guy, number of shots fired, different bullets hitting the same person... so on and so on.

If we studied 10 shootings, 5 with a 22lr and 5 with a 44 magnum... the 22lr could very easily come out showing to be the better "stopper" depending on the above factors. We all know that isn't the case.
And that's the other thing. Excellent point.
 
Read Post # 96, and try to understand it.

Just how do you think those 'datasets' might have been compiled, and by whom?

Or are you joking?

I think, you think, that I'm an idiot. I read it, and I understood it. I perfectly understand what you said.

Here's my issue. I don't believe the 9mm is "just as effective" at stopping a threat as other service cartridges, based on gel test and shooting qualification results. And for me, personally, I won't believe it until there's some evidence. I think by now you know my reasons why.

As far as the collection and collation of data sets, it seems like the FBI could easily do this if they wanted to, based on LEO shootings alone. Body camera footage being more common would also allow for this. If they haven't do so, then they have no real world data to suggest the 9mm is as good as any of the other service cartridges (or in turn, that it is inferior). At best they have a hypothesis, which is nothing to hang a hat on.

So it makes absolutely no sense for anyone to claim that the 9mm is now just as good as other service cartridges.

Although, the question could be ask as to whether it was ever inferior to any of the other service cartridges? And if so, why, and in what way.

You'll never get that. There are way too many variables. Where the bullet hit, penetration of the bullet, was the bad guy on drugs, what kind of drugs, alcohol, physical fitness of the bad guy, overall health of the bad guy, mental state of the bad guy, number of shots fired, different bullets hitting the same person... so on and so on.

If we studied 10 shootings, 5 with a 22lr and 5 with a 44 magnum... the 22lr could very easily come out showing to be the better "stopper" depending on the above factors. We all know that isn't the case.

Over a large enough sample pool, and making obvious exclusions to exceptional cases, the variables would become far less significant.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think, you think, that I'm an idiot.
No--just incredibly naive.
I perfectly understand what you said.
But you have not accepted the reality.
Here's my issue. I don't believe the 9mm is "just as effective" at stopping a threat as other service cartridges, based on gel test and shooting qualification results.
Gel tests are not the basis for the conclusions. They are used in the design and testing of ammunition.
...I won't believe it until there's some evidence.
I characterize years of field results as evidence.
As far as the collection and collation of data sets, it seems like the FBI could easily do this if they wanted to, based on LEO shootings alone
Do you imagine that LEO shootings are recorded from multiple angles, with sound and timers, with persons noting the specific entry point and angle and location and the apparent impact of each successive hit, measuring times and distances accurately along the way, and analyzing the results? Well, they don't. There is no reason to do so. The ammunition they use works.
Although, the question could be ask as to whether it was ever inferior to any of the other service cartridges?
Yes. That is very well known.
And if so, why, and in what way.
Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.
 
Over a large enough sample pool, and making obvious exclusions to exceptional cases, the variables would become far less significant.

Not really though. What things do we exclude and what cases are considered good? Does a 21 year old suspect get lumped in with a 75 year old suspect? What about drugs and alcohol? A large percentage, if not the majority, of suspects shot by citizens and police are on drugs and/or alcohol. So is someone whose been up all night smoking meth and PCP lumped in with other people? Those things are really going to change a person's reaction to pain and can completely distort their reality.

How do you quantify the person's being shot willingness to continue after being hit? Some guys fight through fatal wounds until they are physically incapable to fight due to injuries. Others pass out immediately after "minor" gunshot wounds.

Does a shot straight center chest that destroys the heart a severs the spine count the same as a round to the same spot at a didn't angle that misses the heart and just perforates the lung?
 
I characterize years of field results as evidence.

So where are these field results then?

Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.

If bullet hole size doesn't matter, there's no issue in the first place because expansion is a none-issue. It doesn't need to get bigger, because bigger doesn't matter, because wound size doesn't matter. Right? There. I just solved the problem of penetration and bullet integrity with the 9mm for you.

Except that bullet expansion does matter, because wound size does matter. Right? Or does it not? I can't remember if you said it did or it didn't when you were arguing that the increase bullet size and expansion of the .40 and .45 we're not important.

Not really though. What things do we exclude and what cases are considered good? Does a 21 year old suspect get lumped in with a 75 year old suspect? What about drugs and alcohol? A large percentage, if not the majority, of suspects shot by citizens and police are on drugs and/or alcohol. So is someone whose been up all night smoking meth and PCP lumped in with other people? Those things are really going to change a person's reaction to pain and can completely distort their reality.

How do you quantify the person's being shot willingness to continue after being hit? Some guys fight through fatal wounds until they are physically incapable to fight due to injuries. Others pass out immediately after "minor" gunshot wounds.

Does a shot straight center chest that destroys the heart a severs the spine count the same as a round to the same spot at a didn't angle that misses the heart and just perforates the lung?

Exclusions can be fairly obvious. If I subject is shot once, flees, and is then cornered 30 minutes later, we probably shouldn't run the clock for a 30 minute gunfight. I'm fairly confident some sensible parameters could be used. Would you like me to create all the parameters for the study right this moment for you?

All the other stuff about drug use and age, and the types of stop, yes. Use it all. With a large enough sample size it'll wash out. A stop when they have stopped fighting, however that may come about. It's only impossible if you want it to be. If department can study the shot-to-hit ratio of their officers (which they can), they can add in the cartridge and the number of shot until a shot is achieved. How hard is that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So where are these field results then?
Officers are involved in shootings every cay. The police reports and forensic data are recorded and analyzed. If you are looking for a compendium, you won't find it.
There. I just solved the problem of penetration and bullet integrity with the 9mm for you.
For ME? Thanks. Do you really think you have explained why current premium grade bonded 9mm bullets are working, and the early JHPs did not?
Right? Or does it not? I can't remember if you said it did or it didn't when you were arguing that the increase bullet size and expansion of the .40 and .45 we're not important.
Don't worry about what I have said. There are all kinds of experts who have weigh ed in on his, with a lot of data, and their reports have been peer reviews.
Would you like me to create all the parameters for the study right this moment for you?
No. No one is going to start trying to collect the data. They have far more important things to do. And there's no need: notwithstanding your personal skepticism, their ammunition is working.
 
Second question first: issues with penetration, projectiles holding together, and expansion. Answering the first question: bullet performance. That has been publicly known for many years.
Bullet performance didn't evolve at different times for each caliber all handgun bullets in the 80s were basic cup and core, the technology that has made 9mm bullets better has also made 40 bullets better.
 
Officers are involved in shootings every cay. The police reports and forensic data are recorded and analyzed. If you are looking for a compendium, you won't find it.
For ME? Thanks. Do you really think you have explained why current premium grade bonded 9mm bullets are working, and the early JHPs did not?
Don't worry about what I have said. There are all kinds of experts who have weigh ed in on his, with a lot of data, and their reports have been peer reviews.
No. No one is going to start trying to collect the data. They have far more important things to do. And there's no need: notwithstanding your personal skepticism, their ammunition is working.

I see. No real world data. The "experts" have it all under control though.

Do NOT question the Bullet Gods!

Seems like once again I've hit a wall where it comes to evidence. But the "experts" know. That's comforting.

I don't suppose anyone knows why the FBI requires a minimum expansion of 150% of a bullet's original diameter? Just doing some quick math, a 9mm needs to be 13.5mm. But a .45 (which begins as 11.45mm) need to expand to 17.18mm to pass their tests.

Bullet size doesn't matter.
 
Not really though. What things do we exclude and what cases are considered good? Does a 21 year old suspect get lumped in with a 75 year old suspect? What about drugs and alcohol? A large percentage, if not the majority, of suspects shot by citizens and police are on drugs and/or alcohol. So is someone whose been up all night smoking meth and PCP lumped in with other people? Those things are really going to change a person's reaction to pain and can completely distort their reality.

How do you quantify the person's being shot willingness to continue after being hit? Some guys fight through fatal wounds until they are physically incapable to fight due to injuries. Others pass out immediately after "minor" gunshot wounds.

Does a shot straight center chest that destroys the heart a severs the spine count the same as a round to the same spot at a didn't angle that misses the heart and just perforates the lung?
I agree with this.....IMO, there are way too many variables for them to be considered less significant even in a larger sample pool.

As I stated in another thread, I carry and will continue to carry .40 180gr HSTs and will add to my carry .45 230gr Win Ranger-T because I feel much more comfortable with the larger calibers and I want larger expansion. Sometimes it seems pointless to try and convince others why I believe what is correct for my situation as opposed to theirs.

The debate perhaps is better suited to the individual's situation which takes much more than performance into consideration....
 
“So, stopping a threat really does not come down to caliber, it is shot placement.”

https://www.policemag.com/374542/a-trauma-surgeon-talks-about-wound-ballistics-and-stopping-power

Fackler is a good read….

So the problem I have with this type of article is that it basically says handgun bullets are worthless unless you hit the CNS. Yet common doctrine is to shoot for the thoracic cavity, and keep shooting til the threat is down. Shot placement is important. But wounding isn't, because wounds don't stop a threat unless you hit the CNS. But don't shoot for the brain, because it's too small a target. Stick to center mass, but blood lose isn't immediately incapacitating so the lungs aren't actually effective targets. Apparently the heart and major arteries are....but not fast enough, and a bigger bullet won't help you hit those. And a temporary cavity isn't big enough to hit those either (ignore the larger temporary cavities from the .357 Mag and Sig). Keep shooting for center mass and hope for a CNS hit....in the spine?

Do handguns even work?!
 
This is as contentious as the "what oil is best" thread on my motorcycle board. We are getting some good information, but there is frustration because "stopping power" has many variables and we can't go out shooting people with those variables controlled, so there will never be a definitive answer.

But there doesn't need to be. The OP was wondering if 40 S&W was not effective, and if it was, why it was not as popular as it once was. The answer is that it is effective with current bullet design. Popularity with police forces, military and drug lords depends on a slew of things that vary with budgets, officer proficiency and training, environments and on and on. So yes, 40 S&W is effective. It is not as popular as it once was, but that does not mean it is less effective.
 
So the problem I have with this type of article is that it basically says handgun bullets are worthless unless you hit the CNS. Yet common doctrine is to shoot for the thoracic cavity, and keep shooting til the threat is down. Shot placement is important. But wounding isn't, because wounds don't stop a threat unless you hit the CNS. But don't shoot for the brain, because it's too small a target. Stick to center mass, but blood lose isn't immediately incapacitating so the lungs aren't actually effective targets. Apparently the heart and major arteries are....but not fast enough, and a bigger bullet won't help you hit those. And a temporary cavity isn't big enough to hit those either (ignore the larger temporary cavities from the .357 Mag and Sig). Keep shooting for center mass and hope for a CNS hit....in the spine?

Do handguns even work?!

That's not what the article says at all. A high CNS hit is what is needed to make a person stop right then and there. You sever the spine in the neck then all the other factors dont matter because the person physically cant continue to fight. Other than that you are poking holes and causing blood loss. It can be quick or it can be slow, depending on what is hit. Solid hits on the organ or blood vessels are far more effective than nicks.

When it comes to blood loss what is actually hit plays a big part. If you destroy the heart the blood pressure drops to zero real quick and the brain is no longer getting oxygenated blood. This might render someone unconscious immediately or they might be ambulatory for 30 seconds. If you hit the liver or an artery they might be conscious and mobile for several minutes, if not longer. However they might go into shock and lose consciousness after a few seconds and die 20 minutes later.

For me, headshots are a secondary target. The head is small and moves a lot more than the torso. Also the head has a lot of hard dense bone in it and Ive seen handgun bullets glance of the skull or stop/deflect in the facial bones on many occasions. Even rifle rounds do this sometimes.

Temporary cavitation just doesnt do much at duty handgun levels. Dr Roberts studies have shown that they start to see temporary cavitation doing significant damage around the "heavy 44 magnum" level. So yes a Buffalo Bore 44 magnum will probably cause significant injury outside of the actual bullet wound channel, but your 124 9mm, 180 .40, or 230 .45 is just poking holes.

When it comes to bullet size... Do the bigger bullets cause bigger wounds? Yes they do. Do the bigger wounds really matter? Not so much. a 9mm that expands to .6 inches or a 45 that expands to .8 inches are both going to put holes big enough in a heart or aorta to cease operation of that organ/vessel. "But the bigger bullet can hit things the 9mm missed"... yes it can. But again we want sold hits to cease the operation, not nicks that the person can withstand for an hour.

These are the reason why people like me say "handguns suck". Once you've been in some gunfights and you see rifles dropping guys and you see guys soak up handgun rounds, you'll come to the same conclusion.
 
Do handguns even work?!

Agreed, for immediate stops…the following is completely made up, but sums my thoughts in general:
  • 99% of the bad guys run when any firearm is presented,
  • Of the remaining 1%, 99% lay down and make hurt noises when shot,
  • Of the remaining 1%…that is what we are talking about….
They are “stopped” by:
  • Disrupting the CNS - binary, on or off - small target, hard to hit, better protected than other parts - good hits generally have quick stops
  • Mechanical - key structural elements are broken - hips, shoulders, etc…still small targets, good hits have stops, but may take hitting multiple mechanical elements (think the Black Knight in Monty Python’s “Holy Grail”…)
  • Leakage - either loss of blood or failing to move air sufficiently…easier hits, slow to stop…
What will provide the most leakage? Bigger and faster…that said, you cannot miss fast enough to win. I think most here are in agreement…handguns are terrible at “stopping” when the worst happens. An example of the strength of the human spirit - those awarded the CMOH. They show what a human can do in the worst of circumstance…most far greater than pistol wounds. Couple the same strength in the negative (bad guys) often chemically enhanced…

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/stopping-power-one-doctors-point-view/

“More importantly, get your mind off of stopping power and onto fighting. That’s what your gun is for, and it’s what you’ll be doing even if your gun doesn’t work.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top