[Scenario-Your Opinion] % Chance of 1-Shot Stop With .40 JHP Through the Heart From A Full Size Gun?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about same scenario, 1 bullet through the heart, but it's a .380 Flat Nose FMJ round? So no expansion, just penetration.

You do realize that nearly any traumatic event that directly effects your heart can be deadly right? There are cases of blunt force trauma to the chest has caused immediate heart failure. Anything that punctures the heart can be deadly.
A .40 through the heart and you're a goner, even if you are already in the emergency room. 100% chance.
 
you'll get all kinds of opinions. the cartridge you are talking about is a solid pistol round. if you spend any time thinking about one pistol cartridge vs. the other, you quickly realize your strategy should be to have a high-powered rifle or shotgun if at all possible.
 
The .40 is a great round.

It’s open to conjecture whether it really does anything better in the real world compared to a 9mm with a modern hollowpoint projectile, aside from cost more, and have harder to control recoil (which detracts from shot placement and rapid fire).

But there’s absolutely no reason to buy a 9mm (or a .45acp) if you have a gun in .40 that you like and can shoot well.
 
You do realize that nearly any traumatic event that directly effects your heart can be deadly right? There are cases of blunt force trauma to the chest has caused immediate heart failure. Anything that punctures the heart can be deadly.
A .40 through the heart and you're a goner, even if you are already in the emergency room. 100% chance.
What would you say about the same, except instead of the heart, it's through a lung? Is one lung being taken out lethal, or it'd have to be both?
 
What would you say about the same, except instead of the heart, it's through a lung? Is one lung being taken out lethal, or it'd have to be both?

Not sure if you really want to know but....I'll play along. I'm not even sure this is a serious thread.
I'm guessing a person can live with 1 good lung. However, if shot through a lung, one would surely bleed out quickly without prompt medical attention.
It would be pretty hard to hit both lungs especially if the baddie is facing you.
If you practice real hard on the double tap though, maybe then you could get both.
 
Last edited:
Is my attacker an opportunity-motivated criminal or an ideologically-motivated terrorist?

-Stan
A pissed off linebacker.
Not sure if you really want to know but....
I'm guessing a person can live with 1 good lung. However, if shot through a lung, one would surely bleed out quickly without prompt medical attention.
I'm not sure this is even a serious thread.
Thanks for the first part of the answer. What part of this thread makes you question it's sincerity?
 
A pissed off linebacker.

Thanks for the first part of the answer. What part of this thread makes you question it's sincerity?

Just the part where you asked if a .40 through the heart would do the job.
So to answer more directly, is the person going to die? Yes 100% of the time.
Will it be a bang-flop? Not necessarily, but probably more often than not.
 
Just the part where you asked if a .40 through the heart would do the job.
So to answer more directly, is the person going to die? Yes 100% of the time.
Will it be a bang-flop? Not necessarily, but probably more often than not.
Idk if you're not understanding "do the job" as the phrase that it is, but I used it referring to will it be lethal/perform adequately in a self defense situation, where the shot placement is the heart. And no, I'm not planning to do it someone if that's some sort of fear you or others have who have seen this thread, lol. Just thought to throw that out there.
 
A bullet hole through the heart will stop a person, no matter the caliber, 100% of the time. The question is, how long will it take to stop them? No one can tell you that.

The better question is: Can you hit the heart on a moving target 100% of the time? I know I can't.

The .40S&W is a solid and reliable cartridge. It was nicknamed "Short & Weak" because it was shorter and weaker than it's parent cartridge, the 10mm Auto. It's also know as the "Snap & Whip" these days, because it is both snappier and whippier than the 9mm (misspelling intentional). The .40 will do the job (as has been said), providing that you do yours (as has been said).

Unlike many people who measure other auto cartridges against the 9mm, I started with the .40S&W, so it's my baseline. It's decent, but thoroughly unremarkable at this point in time.
Don't the calibers law-enforcement forces/agencies use most commonly vary between 9mm, or .40? With .40 being for those who want the extra ""oomph"? Would I be wrong in saying those are the 2 most common carried calibers amongst police?
 
Last edited:
...developed because the FBI's limpwrist brigade couldn't consistently qualify with a Man's cartridge.
The original 10mm loading was never issued to FBI agents, so problems with qualification never had a chance to develop. They settled on the downloaded 10mm before ever issuing guns or ammunition.
In your opinion, what is the % chance that just 1 shot from .40, through the heart, with THIS SPECIFIC ammo and sized gun, will do the job? No matter how big the person is.
Instant incapacitation? Probably not. Incapacitated within a few seconds? Probably.

Depends on where the hole is. Straight through the middle--good chance. Straight through the top--better chance. Through the arteries at the top--really good chance. A small hole at the bottom? Survivable--ask Stacey Lim.

Do you know where the heart is? Not on a 2D target viewed from the front, but inside a 3D target, viewed from any angle?

Can you hit a target the size of the heart on a moving target?

Can you hit a target the size of the heart while you are moving?

Can you do all that while you are being shot at, possibly after being wounded yourself?

The fact is that during a dynamic encounter, the point of impact can not be tightly controlled. In fact, it's common for more shots to miss the attacker entirely than score any kind of a hit, let alone a perfect heart shot.
Is one lung being taken out lethal...
Lethality isn't really the point of self-defense. The practical point of self-defense is stopping the attack. It does you no good if the attacker dies 15 minutes after killing you, nor is it a bad thing if the attack stops immediately but the attacker survives.

Second, shooting someone in a lung will probably incapacitate them eventually and may be fatal, but it's not likely to happen quickly.

1. Pick a quality gun that fits you, that you will carry, that you shoot well and in a common "service pistol caliber".

2. Practice a lot with it. Shoot it with both hands, one hand, one hand weak side. Practice clearance drills. Shoot it when you are tired. Shoot it on the move. If you can find a place that has moving targets, shoot at some moving targets. Practice in low light. If you can find a place that lets you shoot from unorthodox positions, do that. Practice drawing from your carry rig. Watch some real-world shooting videos and see what causes people problems in the real world, what works and what gets people killed. Get some anatomy training so you can visualize the internal structures of the human body from various angles. Get some physiology training so you understand what parts of the body are likely to result in incapacitation if damaged.

3. Pick premium self-defense ammunition from a major ammunition company with an excellent reputation for quality and make sure it works perfectly in your gun.

4. Learn about the laws of self-defense and the practicalities of it.
 
Don't the calibers law-enforcement forces/agencies use most commonly vary between 9mm, or .40? With .40 being for those who want the extra ""oomph"? Would I be wrong in saying those are the 2 most common carried calibers amongst police?

To my knowledge, those two are the most common LE cartridges in current use. But regarding extra "oomph"? I'm not sure how any particular department makes its decisions about duty pistols and ammunition. But it seems like most officers don't have much of a choice about what they carry.
 
I'm not a doctor, and it seems that the only way to confirm any theory is to prove it by doing it (which obviously isn't possible), and perform the experiment several times and do the math to determine the percentage that the desired effects happened. It seems to my non-doctor brain that a bullet in the heart would cause a significant and quick coronary event, not to mention the effects of bleeding and damage to whatever else got hit on the way in and on the way out. However- I shot a deer last year with a 30-30 SP from about 20-25 yards in the heart (which looked like a flower when I dressed it out) and that deer ran about 50 yards. Also, why are we presumably limiting our imaginary scenario to 1 shot? The gun in your OP is a Glock 22, which holds lots more than 1 shot. 15 I believe. I know ammo costs are up, but that should not be a concern when you are trying to save your life.
 
I’ve hunted whitetail for almost 30 years, and have seen first hand how unpredictable their immediate response can be to a kill shot from a centerfire rifle. Some drop instantly, others may run hundreds of yards even after their heart has been torn asunder.

The end result, whether immediate or delayed, is death for the deer in my experience. The initial reaction is often varied.

Never fired upon a person, and hope I never have to. But I suppose it’s possible that their physical reaction would not be dissimilar to a whitetail from an immediate vs delayed timeframe to incapacitation.

Yes, I think the bullet OP posted would be adequate for self defense. Although I can’t say I’d ever completely trust any single shot to immediately incapacitate an assailant.
 
Read enough Massad Ayoob and you'll surprisingly discover that heart shots aren't necessarily instantly fatal.

I didn’t see a time limit, I would say most any bullet that passes through the heart would be fatal.

If you want instant you need a lot of destruction or something that breaks central nervous system communication with the body. That shuts down coordinated body responses “lights out”. You can blow the heart and lungs to liquid and an animal can still travel many yards.
 
Last edited:
I didn’t see a time limit, I would say most any bullet that passes through the heart would be fatal.
I'm remembering one article he wrote... arrived on scene, young man sitting on the curb with a .38 Special wound through the heart. According to Mas, he wasn't feeling good but was still capable of being a problem. Died enroute to the hospital.

I may still have that around here, but won't have time to look until much later today.
 
I'm remembering one article he wrote... arrived on scene, young man sitting on the curb with a .38 Special wound through the heart. According to Mas, he wasn't feeling good but was still capable of being a problem. Died enroute to the hospital.

I may still have that around here, but won't have time to look until much later today.

No need to look it up, I believe you. It also would put him in the 100% dead category, pertaining to the OP.

Always worth remembering that “stop” does not equal “dead” and something in the process of dying is still dangerous until the process is complete.
 
First to consider is the concept of 'one shot stop'. This seems to be a rather fluid term in popular discussion. I am addressing the 'ability to cause a target (human or animal) to be incapacitated or immobilized'. The 'one shot' indicates this action occurs with the first shot (hit) of the arm in question. This implies the adversary is unable to present a future physical threat. This does not demand death be a required consequence.

Again with the discussion of the superiority of 'energy' in the form of kinetic energy, foot pounds (at the muzzle) versus 'energy' in the form of momentum, joules or slugs at the point of impact.
This discussion is rather more complicated. I - and others before - do not find laboratory experiments and results to completely determine the superiority of either theory. Probably as humans and human villains are far too complex to be highly bound by either theory. (Look up the meaning of theory, it is NOT the same as 'guess'.)
At the same time, observation over history seems to favor the idea of heavy projectiles of large frontal area.

Again with the confusion of lethality verses incapacitation. This is the simpler argument: death - unless instant, which is quite rare - does not result in incapacitation. In the infamous 1968 Miami-Dade shooting, one of the villains, Michael Platt was shot and wounded by Agent Jerry Dove. This would essentially tore off the top of one lung and resulted in Platt's death. However, prior to expiring, Platt killed two of the Agents and wounded others. (This is a short account, look it up on line for full details.) This is only one example. Tar Devil presents another in a prior posting.

No thanks to the discussion. I see no reason to explain all this again.
 
Ammo: Winchester Defender Bonded 180 Grain JHP (Test results from a M&P40C 3.5" Barrel)
View attachment 1079184

Gun: Glock 22 (4.49" Barrel)
View attachment 1079185

In your opinion, what is the % chance that just 1 shot from .40, through the heart, with THIS SPECIFIC ammo and sized gun, will do the job? No matter how big the person is.

People often tout .357 mag as the only pick of the common handgun ccw calibers that reliably/frequently achieves one shot stops, but I feel .40 isn't much less capable. Eh? Idk why people say .40 "Short & Weak"? It often hits harder than .45 AND .40 Hollow Points expands more reliably than .45, due to higher velocity. What gives? I say this setup would be a pretty frequent 1 shot stop too. And you get (POTENTIALLY) 16 "One-Shot Stops". .357 mag at most, on average, can give 7 potential 1 shot stops, due to only 7-round capacity.

If 40 Smith & Wesson was the atomic death ray that you seem to think it is every police agency in the United States, really in the World would be carrying it.

Handguns suck at one shot stops. Even in the unlikely event that you actually hit someone's heart dead on and sever their aorta they're still going to be on their feet for a couple of seconds.
 
So what's your personal stance on handgun caliber choice for self defense?

I think handguns for self defense suck but all factors considered they're the best option.

Do you think all calibers are equally effective?

Doesn't matter what I think, all the SMEs pretty much agree that the three main service calibers preform marginally (at best) about the same.

What do you prefer to use for human self defense?

I carry a 9mm Glock

What do you think of effectiveness of a .380?

I think a. 380 started WWI. Handguns suck all we're talking about here is different variations of how bad they suck.

Would you carry a .380 for self-defense?

If that was my option. I don't own one and I wouldn't buy one but if that's what I had that's what I'd carry. JB Hickok got along on a .36 caliber revolver.

Confidently?

No more or less so than anything else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top