Poor, poor Boris....
None are more blind than those who refuse to see.
Penetration....
All of the calibers we are discussing can easily penetrate completely through a human body.
And if we wanted to do that we would just shoot FMJ ammo.
But we don't want over-penetration.
We want adequate penetration, nothing more and nothing less.
The .40, the 9mm, and the .45 all offer adequate penetration.
Expansion....
Expansion is nice, but even with the best ammo one can never count upon expansion.
The 9mm obviously suffers the most in this department since it starts out with smaller diameter than both the .40 and the .45.
If none of the rounds expand as hoped, then the 9mm will make the smallest hole and the smallest wound channel of all three.
And if all three rounds expand as hoped, the 9mm will still make the smaller hole and the smaller wound channel.
Energy....
I realize that this is a hotly debated area, and I also realize that we currently don't fully understand the role that energy plays in the effects of bullets upon humans.
But one thing is not debatable: rounds with more energy delivered to the target are more effective than rounds with less energy delivered to the target.
This is one of the reasons we don't want over penetration.
And this is also one of the reasons that hollow-points are more effective on humans than FMJ rounds.
We want the bullet to stay inside the target for two reasons:
1) Safety. We don't want it hitting an innocent bystander.
2) Energy transferal. We want the round to dump all of its destructive energy in to target.
It doesn't seem to matter much if the energy is gained by using a big and heavy slug going slow (think .45ACP), or a smaller and lighter slug going fast (think .357 magnum), just so long as the energy is there.
The designers of the .40 chose to get that energy by using a medium size slug going fast, which is why it is a high pressure round.
Boris often states that the .45 does the job with less pressure than the .40, and this is true.
But so what?
The .357 magnum does the job with even more pressure.
So what?
As long as it gets the job done and the handgun is still accurate and controllable, it matters not.
I'm done arguing the point here.
I've seen the difference in shootings involving all three calibers firsthand.
The 9mm is definitely the least effective of the three calibers we have been discussing here.
Can it put a man six feet under?
Yes.
But is it less effective overall than the .40 and the .45?
Yes.
Is the .45 more effective than the .40?
From all that I have seen, the answer is clearly NO.
Is the .40 more effective than the .45?
From all that I have seen, the answer is clearly NO.
Does the .40 allow a smaller framed handgun with more magazine capacity than the .45?
And can the .40 deliver to the target the energy desired without using +P ammo or a 5" barrel?
Yes, and yes, which is why I prefer the .40 over the .45 as a carry weapon.
There's no hype to it.
The .40 has been in use for twenty years now.
Hype and marketing can't keep something afloat for twenty years unless there is real merit to the product.
The notion that so many law enforcement agencies choose the .40 just because of hype and marketing is just nonsense.
There's just no getting around the fact that the .40 is a fantastic self-defense handgun caliber.
And apparently there are a lot of police agencies that agree.
The majority of the police in the USA are not going back to the 9mm because it has proven itself less effective than certain other calibers.
And the majority of the police in the USA are not choosing the .45ACP because they want more magazine capacity or a smaller handgun or both.
Easy