Am I going crazy- I may now think .40S&W is better than .45ACP

Status
Not open for further replies.
I've attached a pic that I've found interesting. I don't have a source for it. It's just something that I pulled from a post off of Glocktalk some time ago. If anyone knows where it came from please let us know.

The ballistics chart that the manufacture put on the rounds that I keep in my 40 reads 155-grain at about 1200 ft per sec. That's a little lighter and quit a bit fast than the the charts show they used.

I have one of each of the aforementioned calibers. I like the 9mm for it's capacity and cheap practice. I like my 1911 because it feel great, has an awesome trigger, carries well for it's size, and has a big fat bullet. I carry my 40 when I'm wanting to carry something small (my for 40 and 9mm are the same gun save for the barrel), with a fatter bullet than a 9mm.

Really I don't know if it's the gun or the caliber, but I didn't like shooting the G27, G22, or the Sigma 40, and the G23 I shot was OK. But I do like shooting my 40cal Steyr S as much as I do the 9mm.

All in all, I think these caliber wars are kind of silly :rolleyes:
 

Attachments

  • ballisticchart7rk.jpg
    ballisticchart7rk.jpg
    88.6 KB · Views: 126
I think it's a perfectly good defensive cartridge and so are the other three main offerings. To the original posters point, it really does provide some of the best of both worlds.
 
Yes, the best .40s leave the .45 behind in actual shooting statistics. I still don't own one, figure there's not that much difference in the top loads anyway. Big deal, one is (hypothetical, haven't seen recent stats) 97%, one is 93%? I contend, there's no appreciable difference in 10-15 percent in the M/S stats when they're over 80. I don't look at it that literal. Any of the major calibers are fine. In big revolvers I have a .357 and a .45 Colt. In big autos I have a nine and a .45. In compacts I have a .380, and .38 revolver, and a nine. The 9mm+P or +P+ is an impressive round pushing a 115 grain JHP to 1250 fps, 1330 or so in my Ruger. I'm quite satisfied with it's fight stopping potential, don't need to get into .40. And, I love my .45 for it's accuracy. But, I won't knock the .40. I know it's a good, hot round for a combat handgun. I think it's a little too hot, a little rough on small frame guns, why I prefer the 9 in a really small compact like the baby glocks, the Kahrs, the Kel Tecs.

If I were going to go .40 caliber in a big service gun, though, I might just rather go 10mm. I'd not be carrying either gun for defense and the 10 has outdoor uses. That's sorta why I've never gotten all hot over the .40.
 
Yes, the best .40s leave the .45 behind in actual shooting statistics
END QUOTE

Actually even if you put total faith in Evan Marshalls work thats wrong. According to his data 230 Grain Hydra Shock 45's when fired from 5 inch guns have a 100% one shot stop ratio. Not that I buy it. Evans a good man and even he says not to take his work at face value. There are a lot of variables and the best loads in 9mm, 40 and 45 are only separated by about 4 or 5% on his charts.
pat
 
What I know about the stats is just from reading the Zines from Ayoob's stuff and such. I never bought any of the books and don't practice a religion out of it.

If you know statistics, you know that sample size is everything for determining a mean with decent confidence. If the hydroshock you speak of has a sample size of 15, well, take it with a grain of salt. If it's much under a thousand it's not going to be particularly accurate. This is the problem as I see it with the stats being taken literally. There's simply not enough data for a literal interpretation of them. However, you can tell which ones are serious calibers and which ones (.32ACP, .25ACP, .22 LR) fall on their faces and which ones (.380) are marginal) and, to me, they PROVE that 9mm (much to the regret of the .45 cultists) is no lightweight in self defense. It is a serious caliber, especially in +P form. Of course, pure open minded logic could determine this, too, if you're not a cultist of one sort or another.

When a new caliber comes out, it can take years before they have enough data to draw any conclusions at all on that caliber. The stats definitely have their limitations, but once a significant data base is established for a given load, rough conclusions can be drawn IMHO. Besides that, I understand statistics. I have a problem with jello or any other modeling ever done in terminal ballistics. I think there's too many variables and nobody has come up with a simple mathematical equation that I know of that can rank calibers by any known means to efficiency in stopping a fight. Stats are the closest thing to achieving that even if the approach has its limitations.
 
The last time I witnssed a 180 gr. .40 employed, it worked very well. Same goes for 230 gr. .45. No complaints from the end user or receiver.
 
OK, mostly I'm going to reply generally since many people said variations of the same thing, actually of two things (one is essentially part of what I said, the other is what I used to say).

For the "9mm is cheap, fast, available in high cap, and a decent caliber, .45 is more powerful, so you don't need .40" crowd (I used to be one)...Yes, 9mm is good for defensive purposes. If you want more there is the .45. However, the .40 is a very good round even compared to the .45, has more power than the 9mm, and is available in high cap guns. If you have a 9mm and you have a .45, you have in two guns what you can have in one with the .40.

For the "all three are good calibers, and defensively there is so little difference these caliber wars are useless" crowd...I totally agree.

All are great calibers. In some specific situations one may be better than another. For carry in a small, light, pocketable gun (say a Rohrbaugh (sp?), Kel-Tec P11 or Kahr PM9) I'd definately want a 9mm over a .40 or .45 (less recoil means quicker follow up shots and 9mm is certainly an adequate caliber). For a slightly larger gun, but still compact (under 4" barrel) I'd rather have a 9mm or .40 over a .45 because some .45acp loadings are notorious for poor performance in short barrels. For home defense I'd prefer the .45 because the blast isn't as sharp as from the others and that may be important to my hearing indoors (while I'm not saying anything about decibel levels, I've seen charts that do put it at lower decibel levels than either .40 or 9mm). Both .45 and .40 allow for less careful ammo selection than 9mm does as there is less variability in the effectiveness of the various defensive loadings (i.e. you can buy whatever .40S&W or .45ACP JHPs are on sale as opposed to 9mm where you need to stick with a few specific loadings) . 9mm does allow for more rounds in the same size package. Also, 9mm is cheaper and thus makes a better "one gun" gun (one gun for everything from cheap practice to self-defense).

However, I have come to the conclusion that .40 may be the best of the three overall- i.e. for a one defensive gun person (who may have a 9mm or .22 for cheaper practice) or as a general defensive use gun (as opposed to specialty use above). Whatever measure of effectiveness you subscribe to ("one shot stops", energy, penatration and expansion in ballistics gelatin, a combination of 2 or all of these) .40S&W numbers in the better loadings are equal to or better than better .45ACP loadings in many cases, and none show a very large advantage of .45 over .40. Usually the similarity in best loadings between the two is closer than the similarities in results of 9mm v. either of them. In weaker performing loadings .40 is still much better than the weaker 9mm loadings. Like a .45 it thus gives more flexibility in ammo choice than 9mm, yet it is available in smaller guns than .45ACP and in full-size models it is often available with high-capacity mags like the 9mm. While the rep is for bad recoil (and it is heavier than 9mm and sharper than .45) it is far from unmanagable and most people find it easy to get used to. It is currently available in a large variety of guns (nearly as many as 9mm, possibly more options than the .45ACP), many ammunition loadings are available (about the same as 9mm and .45ACP), and ammo prices aren't bad (cuts the prices of 9mm and .45 pretty much in the middle). It really does solve the few "disadvantages" of either the .45 or 9mm without any real drawbacks in comparison (recoil really isn't bad, unless you are looking for something, anything, to criticize), it is a terrific "compromise".
 
Now for the couple specific responses:

el44vaquero said:
The pull to the darkside is strong with this one. Next thing you know you'll be lusting after a Glock.
Click to expand...
Funny you should say that. I have pretty much decided to be on the lookout for a nice used Glock 19 or 26 (I won't go new for a Glock for political reasons that I don't want to go into on this thread). With a Glock I won't go with a .40 though due to the kB issue- sure it is very rare, but it is far more likely with a Glock in .40 than a Glock in other calibers or a .40 in other guns. It just seems the combo of Glock and .40 isn't a good combo somehow.



mattw said:
would you rather have something small and light or something slow and heavy?
Click to expand...
How about not choosing and going with a high velocity .40S&W in 180gr?:cool:



Ala Dan said:
Yes, you need to seek the help of a good ole' .45 ACP doctor immediately, for your health is failing~! Perhaps he can prescribe a remedy that will put you back on the right track, and rid you of those evil thoughts
Click to expand...
Well, maybe. We'll see how the Ruger KP345 that I just bought works to revive my ."45ACP spirit" after I get to pick it up (MD requires a waiting period).
 
R.H. Lee said:
How would a 185 (or lighter) gr .45 compare with a .40?
Click to expand...

Less sectional density and probably less penatration than the same weight .40. Similiar to the next weight down .40S&W. Similar power levels to the comparable .40S&W. The 185gr and less .45s are much better in short barrels than the 230gr .45ACP so in that respect they perform more like the .40S&W rounds.
 
How about not choosing and going with a high velocity .40S&W in 180gr?
END QUOTE

Because gun go boom boom. lol
Simply put its not safe to hot rod a 180 grain 40 load. Its already a high pressure round thats KB prone. Trying to up the velocity of a 180 grain loads is flat out negligent.
pat
 
The .40 is new?

How old are you guys?

I'm almost 40 years old and the .40 S&W has been around since before I owned my first handgun in the very early 90s.

That's somewhere around 15 years.

That's only "new" if you're really old.

That reminds me of an old timer I know who was recently complaining about that new fangled music. He was referring to 1950s music. That's a true story about an 80 year old fella whom I'm friends with. You guys remind me of him when you talk about the .40 S&W being new. FYI - 16 years have passed since the introduction of the .40 cal. I know time passes faster as you age, but sheesh.

Now don't get all upset about this post. It's meant in good humor. Besides getting upset is bad for your blood pressure and everyone knows old guys have to be careful about that.

I'm sure you'll be complaining about what a young punk I am. I'll take that as a compliment. That's right, I'm a young punk. Raspberry!

;-)

Whether you like the .40 or not, it's not new.
 
Since I'm not a ballistics expert, but I am pretty well versed in business and economics, I'll put a little bit different spin on things here.

All things being equal (and for the most part that really appears to be the case when it comes to caliber wars), the convincing factor to me is where will ammunition companies most likely spend their research and development and manufacturing dollars in improving a particular caliber? It only makes sense that you spend the money where the money is most likely to be returned, in the high-volume, high-demand calibers.

That gives me a great deal of assurance that the 9mm and .45ACP are going to be first in line to benefit from new innovations in bullet designs, and will continue to have the edge in pricing over other calibers. With the differences being so marginal it doesn't seem reasonable to me to focus my attention and money on calibers that are not as likely to lead in refinements and show no compelling advantages over these traditional, time-proven calibers.
 
Simply put its not safe to hot rod a 180 grain 40 load
Click to expand...

That's not what I was talking about at all. I was responding to someone asking if I wanted small and light or heavy or slow. I was pointing out that you could have the advantages of both- the .40S&W is a heavy bullet in the 180gr weight, and it is a relatively high velocity handgun round (relative to the fact that no handgun round is really high velocity- you need to get to rifles for that).


All things being equal (and for the most part that really appears to be the case when it comes to caliber wars), the convincing factor to me is where will ammunition companies most likely spend their research and development and manufacturing dollars in improving a particular caliber? It only makes sense that you spend the money where the money is most likely to be returned, in the high-volume, high-demand calibers.
Click to expand...

Exactly! Another great reason to go with the .40S&W- it is the most used police caliber and a very popular non-LE caliber. When a caliber is that popular you know that the ammo manufacturers are working heavily on it, and it is already as good as the best in the other two.
 
A larger and heavier bullet than the 9 providing similar or greater velocities and faster bullet than the 45 in similar weight. Seems to have a place in my book.
 
Hopefully on topic...
I've considered carrying the 135gr Cor Bon in my G23. Does anyone know if they shoot pretty close to the same POA as the 180gr Hydro Shok?
Biker
 
QUOTE
[That's not what I was talking about at all. I was responding to someone asking if I wanted small and light or heavy or slow. I was pointing out that you could have the advantages of both- the .40S&W is a heavy bullet in the 180gr weight, and it is a relatively high velocity handgun round (relative to the fact that no handgun round is really high velocity- you need to get to rifles for that).]
END QUOTE

Actually the 180 grain 40 travels at approximately 980 fps. Thats slow to moderate by handgun standards.
Pat
 
I'm a 45 guy myself. Not because I am a master of ballistics or anything else, I just like the 45. The fact of the matter is, I wouldn't want to be shot by any of the three...9mm, 40 S&W, OR .45. If you get shot with any of the three in the head, heart, or lungs, your'e going down, QUICK. Anywhere else on the body, and it's going to hurt for quite a while. Ballistics, Shmallistics, it's shot placement that makes a one shot stop.
 
+1 RaetherEnt

The three most important things in handgun bullet perfomance is placement, placement, and penetration.

Look at the Reagan shooting, two were hit in the CNS with a .22, and were clear one-shot drops, the third didn't even realize he had been shot until he saw blood. The FBI Miami incident shows how a well placed shot (9mm, "wonderbullet" of its day Winchester Silvertip JHP) can fail if it has inadaquate penetration.

--wally.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

T
  • Locked
Ammo selection. 40S&W, what it is and what it is not.
Replies
14
Views
1K
decoy562
D
P
  • Locked
Why was the 40s&w invented?
2 3 4
Replies
99
Views
9K
420Stainless
4
C
  • Locked
Anyone change their minds on the .45GAP
Replies
22
Views
1K
GregGry
G
C
  • Locked
Need help selecting a good SD .40S&W loading
Replies
19
Views
673
Kitt
K
A
  • Locked
Why does .45acp ammo cost twice as much as 9mm?
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
Marshall
M
Back
Top