9 MM or 40 S&W

[451 Detonics]

If we have established both the 9mm and the .40 are about equal ion their ability to stop an aggressor the it comes done to other arguments.

Mag capacity...will you always need those extra few rounds? No but it nice to have them.

Shot recovery, there can be no doubt that faster follow up shots are possible with the 9mm, it has significantly less recoil and muzzle flip allowing the sights to be brought back on target faster.

Ammo cost, as a general rule 9mm is going to be cheaper, right now I can buy PMC practice ammo for 8.99 a box locally...no shipping. In good defensive ammo it is about a wash.

My feelings that the 40S&W was an answer to a non-existent problem remains. I can list a shooting where an aggressor took 6 center mass hits from a full power 125 .357 revolver and didn't go down, there will always be abnormal circumstances. The .40 just doesn't bring enough advantage to the table to justify it's recoil and muzzle flip which slows down follow up shots.

And yes...I have owned and shot several .40s including an HK and a Browning HP...sold them both.

 

[AKElroy]

Flip a coin. With high quality ammo, the BG will never be able to tell the difference.

 

[GLOOB]

The 40 has no serious advantage over the 9mm with today's defensive ammo. It, the 40S&W, was (and this comes from an industry insider) a marketing ploy.

Marketing ploy is may be. But I assure you that the time and money spent developing ALL major calibers was done with the idea of future returns. People don't spend this kind of time and money on something just for kicks. The fact that it's successful shows that it wasn't simply a marketing ploy. It was a GOOD marketing ploy.

I personally don't agree that a 180gr .40 is definitively better than a 147 grain 9mm. But take a look at this comparison: per Hogdon's reloading guide, their top 147 grain luger load does 1004 fps, compared to a 155 grain .40SW doing 1280 fps!! Larger, heavier, faster. Doesn't make it definitively "better," but there are certainly a few scenarios where that might come in handy.

If you really think all 3 big calibers are the same, then what does that make the .45 ACP? A big, bloated, obsolete loser!!!?

 

[1stmarine]

I see no point in discussing for hours marginal differences between ammo. Read the indexes I posted. The .40cal will show a slight improvement, but an improvement. That is a fact supported by statistics and scientific research but in the end is a marginal difference and if we equate everything else, the difference suddenly becomes insignificant vs other important factors. Understand what is important to you. What is more important, is if the terminal effectiveness of the round or how accurate you are with that specific round?
Shoot what feels comfortable to you. also consider the pistol weight, handling, reliability. Then you have to factor not just the load, the barrel length, the pistol innate accuracy, the shooter's training. So many things that in the end the discussion of 9mm vs. 40cal is pointless.

 

[Wishoot]

Shoot what feels comfortable to you. also consider the pistol weight, handling, reliability. Then you have to factor not just the load, the barrel length, the pistol innate accuracy, the shooter's training. So many things that in the end the discussion of 9mm vs. 40cal is pointless.

That sums it up quite nicely.

 

[Jaywalker]

1st marine: The .40cal will show a slight improvement, but an improvement. That is a fact supported by statistics and scientific research...

Here's where you lose me, in the old manner of "what's the meaning of 'is'?" What "statistics and scientific research?" If you're talking about raw data, such as energy, momentum, barrier penetration and so forth, then maybe. But, so what? I've found nothing - nothing - that gives the edge among the three loadings in stopping/deterring an aggressor; if you have them, please provide them. The problem with making such blanket statements is that some people (me, when I was younger) will believe them.

I no longer believe these differences, nor do I believe gelatin testing means much more than simply eliminating grossly inadequate rounds. To repeat: medical examiners can't tell differences among GSW from 9mm/.40/.45, and they can't tell if a hollowpoint was or was not used. If they can't, I don't believe I will be able to, either.

 

[COLOSHOOTR]

easyg didn't say anything crazy. Proof that the .40 is a more effective round than the 9mm? Many LEO departments replaced they 9MM with the .40cal round. The average .40 round has more energy than the average 9mm round although some departments still use the 9mm. Lets leave it to that.

I know you're just pointing the positive points on the ammo and have stated positive points on both but...

Don't let the fact that departments went to the .40 fool you into thinking it is really better. The major factor to it is cost... Many departments allowed approved handguns in both .45 ACP and 9mm. That means you have to stock two calibers of duty and practice ammo. Weapons in .45 ACP tend to be low capacity or too big in double stack for anyone with smaller hands to carry. The 9mm doesn't sit well with the macho men who have to have the bigger. Issue .40's to bridge the gap and then you only have to stock practice and duty ammo for that caliber.

A lot of officers have actually gone back to 9mm because of the performace of modern hollow points. If you carry any of the main three calibers (9mm, .40 S&W, or .45ACP) the performace differences are so small they are pretty much meaningless. With any of those three you should not be outgunned unless the bg has a long gun.

I've personally seen the 9mm kill many people and have heard first hand the tales of the 9mm killing many more. So we can let the debate end. Just get what you like and want.

 

[1stmarine]

Here's where you lose me, in the old manner of "what's the meaning of 'is'?" What "statistics and scientific research?"

So you just get lost just here that's easy.

These are some good sources of scientific research...

A) Cornell University Library.... http://arxiv.org/abs/0803.3051
B) Cartridges of the world. - http://www.amazon.com/Cartridges-World-10th-Revised-Expanded/dp/0873496051
C) What is +P ammunition? ...http://www.frfrogspad.com/miscellk.htm#+P
D) Marshall and Sanow, Street Stoppers
9MM OSS index is 90.6% with the best round tested.
40cal OSS index is 93.8% with the best round tested.

When you are done with this we will give you more or simply go to the library.'
If there is no library in your town you can order from amazon.

Nobody said anything here if a medical examiner can tell the difference or not. If you read the entire thread you will find out that I also mentioned that this differences are marginal and that some 9mm rounds can be superior to some other 40cal. and that other factors are more important than this. So read, read, read!

Also, you can believe in what you want, this is a free country.

 

[speaksoftly]

Three pages of 9mm vs 40 S&W? I feel like I'm in an Alfred Hitchcock film. Haha

 

[1stmarine]

I hear you. It is always the same broken record with 9mm vs 40mm, AK vs. AR., .308 vs. 30.06, mine vs yours, etc...
I carry all of them as I feel like it that day and don't think much about it. 9mm, .40cal and .357SIG. All great rounds.
As I said earlier...
I see no point in discussing for hours marginal differences between ammo. Read the indexes I posted. The .40cal will show a slight improvement, but an improvement. That is a fact supported by statistics and scientific research but in the end is a marginal difference and if we equate everything else, the difference suddenly becomes insignificant vs other important factors. Understand what is important to you. What is more important, is if the terminal effectiveness of the round or how accurate you are with that specific round?
Shoot what feels comfortable to you. also consider the pistol weight, handling, reliability. Then you have to factor not just the load, the barrel length, the pistol innate accuracy, the shooter's training. So many things that in the end the discussion of 9mm vs. 40cal is pointless.

 

[Jaywalker]

1stmarine, thanks - that first link re the Courtney study from the Ballistics Testing Group is real evidence, and I've never seen or heard of it. I appreciate it. It's the first instance I've read countering the Fackler "bullets can't hurt what they don't touch" theory that puts crush and penetration above everything. He has consistently debunked the "pressure wave" theory of handgun effectiveness. This study reinstates it, a very useful addition to the literature. Again, thanks.

In its barest form, the study finds that the pressure wave is proportional to the kinetic energy of the bullet, assuming it penetrates at least 12 inches.

Actual measured velocities coupled with penetration are hard to come by. The Firearms Tactical Institute has records of very high .40 S&W velocities from the early 1990's, but Brassfetcher's (http://www.brassfetcher.com/40 S&W.html) 2007 measurements show significantly slower velocities - on the order of 930 fps (180 gr) to 960 fps (165 gr). That gives the edge in effectiveness to the 9mm+P, as energy is more dependent upon velocity than bullet weight.

Still, I asked for evidence, and you provided some that shows that higher energy could provide greater "stopping" power - I appreciate it. It's clear from this study that the 40 S&W could provide an edge if it produced higher velocity, which I assume the ammo makers could easily do if controllability were secondary to accuracy. For my part, I guess I'll have to stop saying there's "no evidence" of any difference; according to this study the 9mm+P might be more effective. I'll see if I can find peer reviews that challenge the Courtney findings. Appreciate the link.

 

[1stmarine]

My pleasure Jaywalker.
I do believe that after the infamous Miami shootout in the 80's a lot of research was done and for a reason the .40 cal came along. the 10mm(FBI) it was just too much for what is needed. Since all this happened the 9mm didn't stay stagnant and some ammo today is devastating. I think that the biggest lesson learned from that episode in history was not the ammo research but the change is police tactics and what have saved more lives vs. potential in different rounds.
I think that the 9mm is great round and depending of your training this might be better. Whatever works for each of us is what we should carry and don't think too much about cavity studies from a few PHDs at Cornell... but also reading and knowing doesn't hurt right?
In the service we didn't have an option but to shoot the berettas with the NATO FMJs +P. If we could have any other system I would still have that one (maybe a glock G17) as we felt very comfortable with the round and the pistol in general. It was not as much the +P ammo but THE TRAINING.

Also I have to tell you that my father in law was a neurosurgeon and before we passed away we had some long chats about this. He was also a veteran and a doctor in D day with the US army and stationed in England at the time. He knew quite well about this type traumas. He told me he found no evidence many times that could tell a doctor what was the precise cause of the injury (probably many messes those days) but when they found bullets inside brains and necks and looked at precise cavities and paths they started to learn what caliber or round as it was presented as evidence of specific type of damage. All pretty interesting as he had no clue or interest about firearms.

I am enlightened by the passion at the HR but still feel like a baby that can learn something every day.

 

[nygunbroker]

I would go with the 40sw ,better Knock down power. With the smaller frames now they make a good cc weapon. Cost Taurus Mill-Pro (9mm,40sw,45ACP) alot of gun in a compact package for less then $400.00.

 

[1stmarine]

Initially it could be the case but 40sw MO BETTA? depending what round, what pistol, what shooter and a few other things. Read through. You will see why.
I cannot tell you about the others but the glock 22,23 and 19. No failures for thousands of rounds. Preventive maintenance every 3000 rounds.
Cheers.
E.

 

[GLOOB]

To repeat: medical examiners can't tell differences among GSW from 9mm/.40/.45, and they can't tell if a hollowpoint was or was not used. If they can't, I don't believe I will be able to, either.

So.... you're saying that FMJ performs the same as hollowpoints?

I don't care if the medical examiners can tell a difference. I care if the shooter and/or shootee can tell a difference in the seconds following a gunshot. I don't presume to know for sure, but I suspect there would be a statistical difference if enough data were ever to be collected. I'm not talking just a simple "one shot stop percentage." I mean, how fast does the shot cause a change in attitude, and how much of a change? This kind of thing doesn't boil down well into statistics, unless there's a lot of good data. And this kind of data is hard to acquire.

 

[DannySeesUSMC]

A lot of misinformation in this thread - much of it debunked years ago, but some how still kicking and being passed around as factual or relevant.

 

[easyg]

I've found nothing - nothing - that gives the edge among the three loadings in stopping/deterring an aggressor; if you have them, please provide them.

The .40 is slightly larger in diameter than the 9mm.
All other things being equal (shot placement, penetration, target medium, etc...) it will destroy more tissue.
This is a fact.

Now an additional 1mm of damage might not sound like much, but think about it...
It's an additional 1mm of damage along the entire bullet path.

All other things being equal, more tissue damage to your attacker is better than less tissue damage.

In other words, a 10mm tunnel through your target's heart is better than a 9mm tunnel through your target's heart.

This is the entire point of hollowpoint ammo....an effort to make a bigger tunnel through your target's body.

 

[speaksoftly]

A lot of misinformation in this thread - much of it debunked years ago, but some how still kicking and being passed around as factual or relevant.

Welcome to THR. Home of the best (most humorous) caliber wars on the interwebs! Haha

 

[Weevil]

So.... you're saying that FMJ performs the same as hollowpoints?

I don't care if the medical examiners can tell a difference. I care if the shooter and/or shootee can tell a difference in the seconds following a gunshot. I don't presume to know for sure, but I suspect there would be a statistical difference if enough data were ever to be collected. I'm not talking just a simple "one shot stop percentage." I mean, how fast does the shot cause a change in attitude, and how much of a change? This kind of thing doesn't boil down well into statistics, unless there's a lot of good data. And this kind of data is hard to acquire.

+1

Who are these MEs and what exactly was it they were looking for?

Were these actual scientific studies or just casual observations?

Human tissue is elastic so yeah it's gonna snap back and just a casual visual inspection isn't going to look much different. This is the reason Ballistic Gelatin is used to observe wound tracks and measure wound volume.


Just ancedotal but I remember a discussion on another forum where some LEOs were discussing a bad batch of ammo they had gotten from one of the big ammo makers. I don't recall the caliber, I think .40 but I'm not sure. Anyway they knew something was wrong because the perps who had been shot in several shooting incidents didn't react like they normally did which was to go down, instead they kept on fighting and more shots than were generally considered normal were required to bring them down. An investigation into the shootings found that the HPs the LEOs were using failed to expand, and further testing of the ammo in gel confirmed that the bullets were not expanding.

Now the interesting part was this wasn't a caliber debate but rather a thread about poor quality ammo. What struck me about it was that the LEOs could tell there was a problem with their ammo just by the way the perps reacted to being shot.

Take what you will from it but this leads me to believe that there are differences in the ammo being used.

 

[Shadow 7D]

Weevil, um you, in the same mouthful say two contradictory things..

Human tissue is elastic so yeah it's gonna snap back and just a casual visual inspection isn't going to look much different

which =

medical examiners can't tell differences among GSW from 9mm/.40/.45,

SO

Ballistic Gelatin is used to observe wound tracks and measure wound volume

And a human ANALOG (and not a very good one, but better than most) disproves a TRAINED medical doctor and scientific investigator in why people die (coroner)


NOW you get to the crux of it, DOES a shockwave (the mysterious and MUCH debated Hydro-static shock....) do anything? As if it does, why doesn't a .50 tear your arm off on a near miss, why can you stand next to a FlashBANG......

The point is, in a gross (as in over all impression) examination of a GSW victim, the guy isn't going to have a pressure wave that tattoos .45 on his forehead. As for wound tracks, sorry but how damaged is a rubber band from stretching, it may be damages SOME, but not nearly as much as one that is cut

Ballistics gel lacks the elasticity that is seen in LIVE tissue, and is an acknowledged shortfall of the medium.

 

[Weevil]

Shadow 7D,

I don't see how they're contadictory.

If it were simply a matter of visual observations then cadavers could be used for ballistic testing.

Unfortunately human tissue just deoesn't leave behind a very good record of the trauma caused by a bullet.

So what good does it do to go by the visual observations of MEs?

They all look alike but I think most of us realize there are differences particularly when using FMJ and HPs.

While Ballistic Gel may not be the perfect media it does leave a record that can be observed visually and measured scientifically. It's not just "stretch" either in BG HPs clearly show greater tissue destruction which translate to more wound volume. Apparently this increased tissue destruction is not as easily observed by the naked eye when carving up a cadaver.

This information can then be used to give us a rough idea of how various bullet types and calibers will effect human tissue.


What is it we can learn from ME's who say they all look alike?

Are we to conclude that since MEs can't visually observe any difference that all bullet types and calibers are the same, even when those doing the actual shootings tell us different?


Or do we conclude that visual observations by MEs aren't particulary useful for determining the damage and trauma caused by a bullet as it passes through human tissue?

 

[sm]

<Curmudgeon Mode >

.40 is a solution to a non-existent problem.

Not to mention the snappy recoil ( not liked at all) by students I taught / assisted with teaching.

Add, not only it is wrong, but downright disrespectful to have a BHP in .40

 

[Brian10]

Not to throw more wood to the fire, but the .40 is the solution to a problem where a Federal agency(s) determined that the 9mm is too weak. I'm sorry, but that is a fact.

 

[GLOOB]

As for wound tracks, sorry but how damaged is a rubber band from stretching, it may be damages SOME, but not nearly as much as one that is cut

There's the camp that believes only in bleeding potential, because that's all that can be quantified, post mortem. But this isn't the entire net sum of a bullet's performance. Take a punch, for example. It can cause immense pain and disorientation without spilling a single drop.

If someone has a gun trained on you and is about to pull the trigger, would you rather punch his lights out? Or make a surgical wound that will cause his death in the next 2 minutes, but he won't notice for a bit?

A bullet wound is a bit of both. Sure, many people have been shot and didn't even feel it. But that depends on the bullet, the placement, and the person. I bet getting shot in the right spot might hurt quite a bit and be very distracting, if those temporary stretch wounds are stretching the right nerves. It might even cause temporary motor dysfunction of the involved nerves. It's also possible for a hydrostatic pressure wave to spike pressure in the brain, possibly causing disorientation or damage.

 

[1stmarine]

No doubt the scientific data is there but also the objective of defensive shooting is not to see how fast the target can bleed or not but to stop the thread as soon as possible. Both systems can accomplish that with a good defensive round, a good pistol and specially a good well trained shooter.