any data of one shot stops in real life, 9mm vs. .40 s&w?

[Walt Sherrill]

Confusion also begins by switching perspective, or not switching it. If a shooter stops a fight with a gun in 380acp then that gun and caliber are just as good in that situation as any other gun and round...the gun in the hands of a person stopped a fight.

I noticed that while you responded to the first part of the paragraph in your reply, you ignored the rest of that paragraph, and left the implicit questions unanswered. Let me repeat the paragraph, and underline the parts ignored.

Why switch to something that doesn't do the job in your hands? When the SHTF you want to be able to put the rounds where they are most effective. Use the gun and the rounds that work best for you and don't talk yourself into doing something that just doesn't make sense.

Talking only about round performance while ignoring the shooter's ability to use that performance effectively ignores the other side of what is the same coin and could result in a different type of confusion. What's BEST when comparing performance specs isn't always the same as what's BEST when a tool is put to use in the real world.

If RESULTS -- not performance specs -- are what matters, and you can't shoot the .40 or .45 well, many shooters might find that 9mm rounds are not only "just as good," they may actually be better than the .40/.45/.44 magnum alternatives.

I cited a link to the Gold Dot performance specs earlier -- not because I consider that family of rounds to be the best available, but simply because the Gold Dot data was easily accessed and well presented. I'm sure there are rounds from other ammo makers that perform at least as well or better.

I was surprised, when I looked at the data, that when comparing performance specs alone, some 9mm rounds performed as well as some .40 and .45 rounds, and in a few performance categories, actually outperformed the larger caliber rounds.

Ammo makers have made a lot of advances in the past 10-15 years.

 

[Blue Feather]

I can’t argue with you. Shoot what works well for you. I’ve been shooting .40 caliber pistols since 1993. I shoot them well. To those who prefer another caliber, more power to ya.

 

[JohnBiltz]

My personal opinion is caliber doesn't matter that much. A pistol is going to make a hole. What rifles do is a whole different ball game. Back when .40 came out I bought one after a year and thousands of rounds, I got rid of it. I shot a 9 a lot better.

I subscribe to Paul Harrell's channel. He makes good videos. But he is far from an ordinary shooter. The better you are the smaller the difference in shooting 9mm and .40 becomes. But there is a difference.

I believe .40 ballistics are slightly better than a 9mm. It makes a slightly bigger hole. For police, barrier protection matters. For civilians, it really doesn't matter.

I believe that for most shooters, a 9mm's superior shoot-ability out weighs the .40s slightly better ballistics. Police training courses seems to confirm this.

.40 proponents will tell you that there is no difference in recoil between .40 and 9mm and that the reason they can't shoot .40 is you are wimpy or girly. They often do this in the same post. If there is no difference in recoil then how is shooting one manly and one girly? What the FBI and several larger police department do is start trainees with .40 and if they fail to qualify give them 9mm and then they qualify and carry 9mm. This is called reality.

 

[pblanc]

I agree entirely that there is a difference in recoil characteristics between 9 mm Luger and .40 S&W when shot from pistols of similar size and weight. I believe I mentioned earlier that when I first tried .40 S&W I didn't shoot it that well because of this. But as many others have, I found that the more I shot .40 S&W and the more familiar I became with it's characteristics, the better I shot it. Now when shooting 9 mm and .40 S&W pistols of similar size and weight back to back, I really don't notice any great difference unless I think about it.

And I am also sure that there are many people who consistently shoot 9 mm more accurately and quickly than they can .40 S&W. But I object to the oft-repeated premise that anyone who shoots .40 S&W well will automatically shoot 9 mm Luger better (than .40). For myself, my groups always seem to be tighter with .40 S&W than with 9 mm and my first shot accuracy is almost always better with forty. This seems to be the case regardless of pistol size or design, or ammunition type, and I have multiple auto-loaders chambered in each caliber. I don't shoot against a timer but I do practice double taps and rapid strings. I suspect that I can shoot multiple shots very marginally faster with 9 mm than with .40 S&W (as Paul Harrell demonstrated in his video), but to my mind improved first shot accuracy outweighs a split second gain in time on a multiple shot string.

But certainly, those who find that they can shoot one caliber significantly better than others should stick with that caliber.

 

[Blue Feather]

The best answer to caliber questions like these is to find what works best for you, worry about your proficiency and your proficiency only while being okay with the fact others may not not make the same choice as you do. To answer the OP’s original question: You will be fine with any proven, well made 9mm JHP round fron a well made and properly maintained pistol. Those who opt for a .40. .357 Sig or .45 ACP will be fine too.

 

[JR24]

On gel, comparing like bullets (such as HST) you really are talking about a few hundredths of an inch expansion and nearly the same penetration, which isnt always consistent dut to the vagaries of bullet speed in differing barrels.

Either way you'll need to have a good hit, or preferably multiple good hits for it to make any difference anyway, considering bullet size vs vital area locations on a torso.

It's likely a wash in real life.

All I really know is that I am objectively, measurably, faster with a 9mm over a .40 in the same platform/gun. Sure, more grip strength and practice could get me faster with the .40, but the same time and effort will yield the same (or better) results with 9mm.

I go with the more bullets, more holes, faster theory. But I do draw the line at 9mm, as smaller calibers dont get the penetration I feel is necessary (this is for the inevitable "use a 22 then" silliness).

I do agree that new training methods (shoot till the threat stops) means that you're going to get less data on single shot stops regardless of caliber, and I'd bet a lot of those are murders where the fight in "fight or flight" was not part of the equation, and in instances of needing to fend off an aggressive criminal, those types of data may not be useful.

Much like how different game animals react to being shot if they are hit unsuspecting vs running full tilt.

 

[tipoc]

"I noticed that while you responded to the first part of the paragraph in your reply, you ignored the rest of that paragraph, and left the implicit questions unanswered. Let me repeat the paragraph, and underline the parts ignored."

"Talking only about round performance while ignoring the shooter's ability to use that performance effectively ignores the other side of what is the same coin and could result in a different type of confusion. What's BEST when comparing performance specs isn't always the same as what's BEST when a tool is put to use in the real world."

But I did not ignore that at all. That in fact has been the thrust of my posts here and in the past where we have disagreed. The essence of what you do is to ignore when I say that and argue against the fact that there are more powerful rounds than the 9mm. A retreat is made by then arguing that it is a "better" round, or tool for most shooters in the real world. This is circular logic.

This ignores the variety of factors that go into selecting a handgun and caliber for a particular role by an individual, whether it's hunting, duty, competition or CCW in a variety of situations.

9mm is often the best choice for an individual. But that does not change physics. The arguments of some in this regard approaches the metaphysical.

Shooters routinely choose the most powerful round and ammo that they can shoot well for the job at hand. For many shooters that is the 9mm and it is a better choice for them in that situation. But then to deny that fact and say that a more powerful round can't be chosen if the shooter also handles that well places many in box that they can't get out of except by denial.

But saying that true thing, that the 9mm is a "better" choice for many for some jobs, does not make it a more powerful round than some other service calibers. The question here is power. Whenever you can bring more power to bear and do it effectively that provides you an edge. That is why many choose the 9mm over the 380 acp, 38 Spl. or the 22 L.R. for self defense in the real world.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Wow, recoil does not matter. Seriously? So just as easy to shoot a ruger LCR22 as it is a Ruger 357? So some shooters will find the 357 much easier to hit the target? I do have a 9mm sub compact and compared it to another 9mm compact that I have shot about 8,000 rounds from and owned for years. Funny, but the new gun with less recoil and muzzle flip shot much easier to target Even with Plus P ammo. Recoil matters, at least to me. I think I will choose a lower recoil gun than move up to a 40. cal.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

In response to my claim that tipoc ignored part of what he responded to, he said:

But I did not ignore that at all. That in fact has been the thrust of my posts here and in the past where we have disagreed. The essence of what you do is to ignore when I say that and argue against the fact that there are more powerful rounds than the 9mm. A retreat is made by then arguing that it is a "better" round, or tool for most shooters in the real world. This is circular logic.

This ignores the variety of factors that go into selecting a handgun and caliber for a particular role by an individual, whether it's hunting, duty, competition or CCW in a variety of situations.

9mm is often the best choice for an individual. But that does not change physics. The arguments of some in this regard approaches the metaphysical.

You did say the things you referred to above, but you also said something quite different. You made a very broad statement and offered no evidence.

9mm is not "just as good" it is a less powerful round than other commonly available service rounds.

That was the statement to which I was responding.

Part of the problem with this sort of discussion is that all of us are inclined to focus on a particular part of the discussion, while ignoring the rest. But the broader context, while important, often has a very complex and sometimes contradictory nature, so it can be hard to keep the focus where it's intended. My apologies if I seemed to unfairly quote you out of context. That really wasn't my intent -- I was focused on the "not 'just as good' " statement cited above.

If the average round performance for all rounds that could be shot through a gun of a given caliber was the sole criteria when selecting and using a given caliber weapon, we would probably all be shooting .44 magnums. But many of us don't care for BIG revolvers with limited capacities, that aren't easily carried, or quickly reloaded.

I think that when someone says 9mm is NOT "just as good" he or she might unconsciously be doing what almost everyone seems to do: i.e., assume that even a wimpy .45 SD round is always going to be a better performer than a robust 9mm SD round. Why is that, I wonder?

It would appear that many years ago, the gun gods -- the opinion leaders in the gun community who teach us the "commonly accepted truths about guns" -- declared that the .45 round was the Gold Standard against which all ammo must be measured. Because of that, most of us consciously or unconsciously still use that yardstick. But, it would appear that nobody has really checked to see if the yardstick has shrunk or grown larger (like a rumor) in quite a while.

As noted in an earlier response, ammo makers have made great strides over the past 10-15 years with all ammo, but most spectacularly with 9mm SD ammo, but while many shooters have noticed the changes, the gun gods have apparently been looking the other way.

 

[18DAI]

I'm old. When you get old, you notice things. I noticed that LE units who regularly encounter armed felons - LAPDs S.I.S., SWAT, Metro - and shoot same, all use 45 caliber pistols to do so.

The recent revelation by the Famous But Incompetent that 9mm is deadly again, has a lot more to do with budgets and diversity (small short females and males who cant shoot a 70 passing score) than it does with ballistics.

Carry whatever you can get accurate fast hits with. Make mine a 45.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

That is kind of an unqualified question. I wonder if a bad guy has ever been shot with a Smith & Wesson's .500 Magnum ? Even if there is no "real world" data on that, I imagine the .500 Magnum has gotta hurt. It is probably more "effective" than either the 9mm or the .40 S&W. Putting terminal ballistics aside, if you want to carry a pocket pistol, you'll find smaller 9mm pistols than .40 S&W. So the 9mm is more effective in regards to concealing well in a pocket.

Good Point, and makes you wonder why everyone including Police are not carrying 500 magnum rather than then the wimpy 40.cal. Especially since recoil means nothing. All these comments and test really come down to his personal opinions rather than any proof of any thing. So many that know more than the FBI, Military, Police, so many internet experts, this test is flawed, this test is better, this test is better than your test and on and on and on. I enjoy the caliber wars, not for facts, but for amusement. The only thing proven to me, is that no one has the right answer. Welcome to the world of the internet.
In the meantime, I will simply stick with the 9mm Micro over the 40.cal.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

I'm old. When you get old, you notice things. I noticed that LE units who regularly encounter armed felons - LAPDs S.I.S., SWAT, Metro - and shoot same, all use 45 caliber pistols to do so.

The recent revelation by the Famous But Incompetent that 9mm is deadly again, has a lot more to do with budgets and diversity (small short females and males who cant shoot a 70 passing score) than it does with ballistics.

Carry whatever you can get accurate fast hits with. Make mine a 45.

So now it is about diversity? Man I love the internet! That comment really did give me a laugh. Where does this stuff come from? What next? When going on a Date, make sure you pack a 45.cal, don't want her to think you are wimpy.

 

[gojones]

Well I always seem to be a step behind. I have a 357 mag by my nightstand because I grew up with revolvers. I also have a 40 SW Sig because my son is LE and got me shooting pistols. A few years ago Sig came into our small town LE and offered to replace the Glock 40's with the new Sig P320 in 9mm free. The city jumped at this because of budget constraints in the middle of the Great Rescission. The officers were allowed to start practicing at the range with more ammo and were happy. Before they were only allowed to meet minimum qualifications with minimum ammo. Now I have bought 9mm dies and will probably buy another pistol in 9mm. The 357 mag and 40 cal. though will stay very close by however. I feel safe with either against an intruder. I carry a M&P shield 40. cal concealed sometimes. Just being armed is important because that may be the difference between surviving and passing. The caliber is secondary to me as a citizen.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

I noticed that LE units who regularly encounter armed felons - LAPDs S.I.S., SWAT, Metro - and shoot same, all use 45 caliber pistols to do so.

The SWAT units I've seen seen seem to do many of their operations using ARs, with handguns only used some of the time -- when an AR might be cumbersome. The ones that do carry handguns often use the same weapon that non-SWAT officers are issued.

Special elite units like the FBI's Hostage Rescue, Swat and Super SWAT teams do use .45s, but they spend a lot of time developing proficiency with their weapons.. Regular FBI agents had been using .40s, but when an agent couldn't shoot them well, he or she was issued a 9mm Glock or SIG. The Glock 17M, 19M, and 26 are now the standard weapon for those with non-specialized duties.

My son was a SWAT team member for a while with his first LEO job some years ago, and he's now a long-time State Trooper here in NC -- carrying a .357 SIG P226 with the DAK trigger. The NCHP also issues troopers shotguns and M&P15s in 5.56.. Anybody going into a gunfight with advanced warning would be wise to carry a handgun, but make the handgun his or her fall-back weapon.

The recent revelation by the Famous But Incompetent that 9mm is deadly again, has a lot more to do with budgets and diversity (small short females and males who cant shoot a 70 passing score) than it does with ballistics.

So you'd have us believe that it's all about diversity and budgets and NOT about the fact that high performance (SD) 9mm rounds now perform a lot better than once was the case?

With the right ammo, a 9mm can perform nearly as well as a .45 -- and in a few cases better. If it really was about diversity, all a given agency had to do was issue 9mm guns to the folks who couldn't shoot .45s or .40s well.That, in fact, has been a common practice in most agencies and the FBI for years. They already had the diversity issue covered -- one wonders why YOU brought it up?

Believe it or not, a LOT of folks, not just women, have a hard time shooting a .45 or .40 as well as they shoot a 9mm. And almost anything 9mm or larger will do the job IF the shooter does his (or her) part. Let us keep in mind, too, that as one FBI Training Unit head once noted (and cited in an earlier response here), about 80% of the rounds fired by LEOs in gun battles tend to miss the target, and that 80% miss rate isn't going to magically drop to 50% (or lower) if they're shooting .40 or .45 instead of a 9mm. I wonder whether that terrible 80% miss rate might be DUE to the fact that so many officers, deputies and troopes are shooting .40 S&W?

You can also bet that the bulk of any LE agency's service weapons aren't close to being worn out at the time of a changeover. Many (maybe most) LEOs just don't use their weapons that often. They'll use sprays, batons, stun guns, etc. a lot more often than they'll use their handguns, and its often a hands-on brawl. A lot of LEOs mostly use their weapon when periodically re-qualifying -- and THAT low use may also play a role in the 80% miss rate.

 

[tipoc]

Not to belabor things...

Walt said:

"
You did say the things you referred to above, but you also said something quite different. You made a very broad statement and offered no evidence.
tipoc said:

'9mm is not "just as good" it is a less powerful round than other commonly available service rounds.'

That was the statement to which I was responding."

But that statement that the 9mm is less powerful than other commonly used and commonly available service rounds stands alone as a true statement.

I also said..."The op says he already has several guns in 9mm. So get a gun in 40 S&W and shoot it. See how you shoot that gun with various bullets and see how good you can get with it. If that Glock don't work well for you try the 40 S&W in a Smith, Sig or other gun. The 40 S&W, like the 45 acp or the 10mm is a very good round. It can be useful though only to the extent that the shooter can shoot it well.

This was clear also. So clear that in the next post AK103K said quoting my earlier statement:
↑
'It can be useful though only to the extent that the shooter can shoot it well.
I think this is the key here, not the caliber. I think anyone who thinks they have a magic caliber in any gun, is just fooling themselves, but even more so with a handgun."

Which is a correct and true statement from AK103K. He understood my point. That being that power alone is only one of several criteria involved in choosing a handgun for an individual. The most important ones being the ability to shoot the gun well for the intended purpose with the caliber and bullet chosen. At the same time choose the most powerful caliber that you can shoot well for the task. It's this last point that the modern day "gun gods" tend to dispute.

The question of what is the "best" service sidearm caliber for the militaries is a settled one. It was settled for most of the world after the close of WWII. In the U.S. it was finally settled in 1986 with the selection of the 9mm and the M9 and M11 to replace the 1911 and the 45acp. The 9mm became rapidly the caliber of U.S. law enforcement as well. But what is the "best" caliber for law enforcement was debated longer but it's been settled in the real world, in practice, as well. It's the 9mm. As always it's not because it's the most effective in terminal performance but because of the combination of features and qualities it brings to the table when you want to arm a department or tens of thousands in an army.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

But that statement that the 9mm is less powerful than other commonly used and commonly available service rounds stands alone as a true statement.

It MAY be a true statement, but that alone doesn't make the 9mm round less good. You've made the assumption that MORE POWERFUL is better, but you haven't explained what "more powerful" means, or why it matters.

You also haven't shown us that "more easily shot accurately" (or some other criteria) isn't an equally important criteria when deciding whether a round or caliber is good or less good.

As I noted in an earlier response, if you compare various 9mm Gold Dot loads to .40 S&W or .45 ACP Gold Dot loads, when looking at some performance parameters 9mm does quite well, and in some cases, does BETTER than .45 ACP or .40 . (Please note, too, that I'm not saying Gold Dot rounds are the best SD rounds -- I just used Gold Dot rounds because their performance characteristics were easily found and compared.)

Examples, only using 9mm vs. .45 ACP to keep it simple...

• In bare ballistic gel, one 9mm round expands to a larger diameter than all three .45 rounds. .830" vs .827"/.810"/.711" (I'll agree that ballistic gel is not human tissue but it is an easily understood performance standard.)
  
• When heavy clothing is placed in front of the gel, 3 of the 4 9mm rounds penetrate more deeply than all three .45 rounds.
  
• When wallboard is placed in front of the gel, only one .45 round penetrates more deeply than any 9mm round, and most of the 9mm rounds expand to with .1/10th of an inch of the diameter of the .45 rounds.
  
• With Safety Glass in front of gel, one 9mm load penetrated more deeply than one of the .45 loads, and expanded to almost the same diameter as the .45 rounds. The heaviest .45 load over-penetrated to 21". In some cases deeper penetration might be good, but in others it might not.

There may be a number of other parameters where a 9mm round outperforms a .45 round, and places where some (even many) of the .45 rounds outperform 9mm rounds. But it's not as black/white or clear cut as you claim. There are so may different loads and rounds available that you simply can't make claims about a given caliber and claim that it always outperforms (i.e., is more powerful than) any one or all other self-defense calibers.

 

[Ignition Override]

The people I know who were robbed at gunpoint (already too Late to reach for Your gun) were ambushed in their driveways from blindspots when returning home, or walking to cars in parking lots.

If knowing that a .40 is better than a 9mm allows me to detect muggers who Aren't detected until three feet from you holding a gun, then I'll try a .40 instead of my carry guns, which are all 9mm.

If a gang of punks from the hood ever rampage again through a Memphis parking lot, or I'm abruptly stuck in a Race Riot with my car blocked by other cars, then I'll have the correct handgun chambering.

 

[Old Guy]

The typical pistol target, for LEOs, Is a paper, or a cardboard one.
When I taught Pistol to Security/Police/Military, I had a prop, a thrown out manakin, upper torso, in styrofoam.
Coupled with a photo of the organs in the upper torso.

A long steel knitting needle was a great way to show how the human body organs shot from oblique angles, need to be adjusted in the aiming point. To hit those deeply embedded parts, Heart/Lungs etc.

Any configuration of my Glock 19 4th Gen projectiles in 9mm striking that less than 2" wide spine, would instantly drop the individual shot, to the deck. Not necessarily out for the count, but down.

My rule, for me... Same gun, same place, always. Same ammo, since it was Black Tallon, now Ranger T 147g Win. More than one target, double taps per. Single target, adversary, real close, 10ft or less, the nose.

More than that distance, single adversary, between the nipples, multiple rounds. Then move to cover, if available. Why 9mm? Why not.

 

[Tallball]

Just glancing at the chart, I'm glad that I occasionally go as "low" as to carry 380acp, but never 32acp.

I'm guessing that at close range, 12 gauge buckshot might be the closest thing to a "magic bullet".

9mm and 40 and 45acp all feel about the same to me, recoil-wise, but I'm a big guy and have been shooting for about 40 years.

I shoot revolvers better and am more comfortable with them. I prefer 38 special +P, or 357 magnum, or 44 special for CC or HD. Sometimes it's 380, 9mm ,or 40, or 45acp, and that's okay, too.

I don't doubt that smaller, less experienced shooters have more trouble shooting the larger calibers well.

I also don't doubt that if I were forced to poke a hole through someone, a .44" or .45" hole would be a little more effective than a .36" hole.

 

[CZF]

>357 will give you as much confidence as a .45, and a .357 Magnum.

MOst OSS data is really dated, and was disputed by many experts from day one.

I can't find .357 SIG locally, or I'd still be carrying a Glock 33, and shooting
other .357s SIGs as well.

The M&P 357 Compact was more accurate than the Glocks, and had soft recoil.

Even though I miss the raw power and phenom. accuracy of the .357 SIG.

My PPQs in 9mm or .45 do well these days.

Same for my XD pistols.




I also like and trust Gold Dots, esp. in Double Tap bonded
defense form.