What happened to 40 caliber?

[mavracer]

One side claimed that temporary cavity was very important and that ammo design should emphasize that even if it resulted in minimal penetration.

The other side claimed that temporary cavity and tissue stretch was never an issue and that penetration with reliable expansion was the only thing that mattered.

The truth is somewhere in the middle, but neither side was inclined to rational discussion or even the hint of compromise.

Thing is nobody in this century that I'm aware of has argued that temporary cavity should be emphasized at the expense of adequate penetration, even Dr Courtney held that adequate penetration was more important.
You have people in the other camp still going in this thread.

 

[JohnKSa]

Thing is nobody in this century that I'm aware of has argued that temporary cavity should be emphasized at the expense of adequate penetration...

I was trying to provide context for why such an obviously false claim (handgun bullets never damage anything they don't physically touch) would have been made. It's important to realize that it was one half of an argument where both sides were making obviously problematic claims.

While it is true that it's less common to find "experts" promoting temporary cavity at the expense of penetration these days, that school of thought is not completely dead by any means. You can still buy handgun ammo designed to provide that kind of "performance"--and from more than one maker.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

So @Shawn Dodson , do you agree that handgun bullets at handgun velocities can cause wounds notably in excess of the bullet's expanded diameter? Or do you not?

Either they can, which means Fackler's blanket statement that they cannot, is wrong. Or they can't, which means those wounds in the links didn't happen.

I've already listed several factors in which a defensive handgun bullet can produce permanent disruption that's greater than the diameter of the bullet. However, the POTENTIAL for this to happen is entirely dependent on what tissues the bullet hits and where these tissues are positioned along the bullet's wound track.

 

[WrongHanded]

I've already listed several factors in which a defensive handgun bullet can produce permanent disruption that's greater than the diameter of the bullet. However, the POTENTIAL for this to happen is entirely dependent on what tissues the bullet hits and where these tissues are positioned along the bullet's wound track.

Scenario: A 135gr .40S&W JHP travelling at approximately 1350fps (such as in one of these examples) ,is shot at a human who is facing the shooter. The shot placement puts the bullet's path directly in line with the center of the right lung. There is no arm in the way. The target/human is wearing typical clothing for early Fall. In your assessment, do you think there will be disproportionally wounding to that lung in excess of the bullet's expanded diameter?

You know. A wound like in the deer lung.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Scenario: A 135gr .40S&W JHP travelling at approximately 1350fps (such as in one of these examples) ,is shot at a human who is facing the shooter. The shot placement puts the bullet's path directly in line with the center of the right lung. There is no arm in the way. The target/human is wearing typical clothing for early Fall. In your assessment, do you think there will be disproportionally wounding to that lung in excess of the bullet's expanded diameter?

You know. A wound like in the deer lung.

Yes, the potential exists.

 

[The Kershaw]

If popularity is based on the brass I pick up at the range, 9mm is by far the champion. It used to be I picked up a fair amount of 40 S&W, now, it is onesies and twosies. I find more 380 Auto than 40 caliber.

So what is going on?

I miss the days when I picked up coffee cans worth of 38 Special. Its a blue moon when I find any of those.

40 sucks because

* Larger round means fewer rounds in magazine
* More expensive to produce
* More felt recoil, doubly so in polymer/compact/sub-compact guns
* Worse terminal ballistics than modern 9mm

 

[Rubone]

40 sucks because

* Larger round means fewer rounds in magazine
* More expensive to produce
* More felt recoil, doubly so in polymer/compact/sub-compact guns
* Worse terminal ballistics than modern 9mm

I love that attitude as it makes me really like my .40s more. No loss of love for them in my world.

 

[The Kershaw]

The attitude of objective facts?

Though now that 40 has fallen out of favor, you can probably get a lot of it for cheap, or at least cheaper than it has been in a long time.

 

[nick22]

I carry a Glock 23 most of the time and I don't carry it because it shoots a bit larger bullet than my 9mm. I carry the .40's because in my experience they're more reliable especially in situations that aren't your standard presentation. For example if you're arm is injured in some way and don't have as good of a grip a .40 will still cycle every time. a 9mm will choke on occasion. If you're knocked onto your back and end up shooting at odd angles 9mm's are more prone to choking. These are my experiences and why I prefer the .40 S&W. For the record I actually prefer my Glock 20 in 10 mm when it's cold enough to hide it well.

 

[P5 Guy]

Does 0.045 and 40 grains make that big an advantage for 40S&W over 9x19 Parabellum?
According to our gun expert in the Whitehouse 9mm blows out lungs, does 40S&W blow out lungs and spleens?

 

[CDW4ME]

40 sucks because
* Worse terminal ballistics than modern 9mm

If only Federal provided ballistics testing for people:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
Bare gel
9mm 124+P - 10'' / .87
9mm 147 - 12'' / .85
40 S&W 180 - 12'' .96 (9mm 147 did well, but this is better)

Heavy Clothing
9mm 124+P - 13'' / .61
9mm 147 - 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 - 12.5'' / .80 (again, 9mm 147 did well but this is better)

Auto glass
9mm 124+P - 11'' / .54
9mm 147 - 11'' / .68
40 S&W 180 - 14'' / .62 (the only bullet in this comparison to penetrate 12+'')

Looks like Federal applied their "modern" bullet tech to 40 too.

 

[Slamfire]

If only Federal provided ballistics testing for people:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
Bare gel
9mm 124+P - 10'' / .87
9mm 147 - 12'' / .85
40 S&W 180 - 12'' .96 (9mm 147 did well, but this is better)

Heavy Clothing
9mm 124+P - 13'' / .61
9mm 147 - 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 - 12.5'' / .80 (again, 9mm 147 did well but this is better)

Auto glass
9mm 124+P - 11'' / .54
9mm 147 - 11'' / .68
40 S&W 180 - 14'' / .62 (the only bullet in this comparison to penetrate 12+'')

Looks like Federal applied their "modern" bullet tech to 40 too.

People shot with a 9mm or 40 cal can tell the difference between a 0.69 bullet hole in their torso and a 0.80 one, Just stands to reason.

 

[CDW4ME]

People shot with a 9mm or 40 cal can tell the difference between a 0.69 bullet hole in their torso and a 0.80 one, Just stands to reason.

Of course, because we have all read how 45 FMJ was preferred in the military versus 9mm FMJ and that is a .10 difference. (.35 / .45)
Stands to reason that if comparing a hole of .70 versus .80 the larger hole is potentially advantageous.

Just to be sure that 40 received "modern" enhancement like 9mm I'll check with Winchester too:
https://winchesterle.com/-/media/Pr...gun-Bullet-Barrier-Testing-Protocol_2016.ashx
Heavy cloth
9mm T - 124 +P 13.2'' / .77
9mm T - 127 +P+ 14.4'' / .70
9mm T - 147 14'' / .66
40 T - 165 14.2'' / .82
As with HST, the 9mm Ranger performs well but it would be incorrect to say that it performs equal to (or better than) 40
I'm not knocking 9mm I'd not lose sleep carrying my Glock 17/34 rather than my Glock 22/35 - I'm simply posting manufacturer data.

 

[The Kershaw]

If only Federal provided ballistics testing for people:
https://le.vistaoutdoor.com/wound_ballistics/load_comparison/load_comparison.aspx
Bare gel
9mm 124+P - 10'' / .87
9mm 147 - 12'' / .85
40 S&W 180 - 12'' .96 (9mm 147 did well, but this is better)

Heavy Clothing
9mm 124+P - 13'' / .61
9mm 147 - 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 - 12.5'' / .80 (again, 9mm 147 did well but this is better)

Auto glass
9mm 124+P - 11'' / .54
9mm 147 - 11'' / .68
40 S&W 180 - 14'' / .62 (the only bullet in this comparison to penetrate 12+'')

Looks like Federal applied their "modern" bullet tech to 40 too.

Try not to get it twisted, or your feelings hurt, I'm not attacking .40, I'm just answering the original question from the OP, which was "what happened to 40 caliber?"

I don't suppose you have a less biased, cherry picked dataset other than that table where Federal ammo is comparing Federal ammo against Federal ammo do you?

For a far more expansive representation of modern cartridges out there, Lucky Gunner put out a more expansive, thorough test with the FBI standard: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

You can comb through those, as excels data import feature doesn't recognize the penetration depth table for me to sort through (much to my chagrin!) Differences are negligible in categories that matter (seriously who is getting into shootouts in their car?) There's a reason why the FBI and hundreds of US police forces, and police and armies throughout the world use 9mm, and not 40: it offers no tangible advantage over the less expensive, higher capacity, less felt recoil 9mm. Also, it's a bit asinine to flout a .4" diameter bullet having a larger expansion than a .35 diameter bullet.

I carry a Glock 23 most of the time and I don't carry it because it shoots a bit larger bullet than my 9mm. I carry the .40's because in my experience they're more reliable especially in situations that aren't your standard presentation. For example if you're arm is injured in some way and don't have as good of a grip a .40 will still cycle every time. a 9mm will choke on occasion. If you're knocked onto your back and end up shooting at odd angles 9mm's are more prone to choking. These are my experiences and why I prefer the .40 S&W. For the record I actually prefer my Glock 20 in 10 mm when it's cold enough to hide it well.

100% grip problem, nothing to do with the cartridge.

 

[Buckeye63]

 

[CDW4ME]

I don't suppose you have a less biased, cherry picked dataset other than that table where Federal ammo is comparing Federal ammo against Federal ammo do you?

For a far more expansive representation of modern cartridges out there, Lucky Gunner put out a more expansive, thorough test with the FBI standard: https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/#9mm

Yes, rather than the clear gel used by Lucky Gunner I'm posting manufacturer data, HST vs HST and Ranger T vs Ranger T "cherry picking" it aint.

Just to be sure that 40 received "modern" enhancement like 9mm I'll check with Winchester too:
https://winchesterle.com/-/media/Pr...gun-Bullet-Barrier-Testing-Protocol_2016.ashx
Heavy cloth
9mm T - 124 +P 13.2'' / .77
9mm T - 127 +P+ 14.4'' / .70
9mm T - 147 14'' / .66
40 T - 165 14.2'' / .82
As with HST, the 9mm Ranger performs well but it would be incorrect to say that it performs equal to (or better than) 40
I'm not knocking 9mm I'd not lose sleep carrying my Glock 17/34 rather than my Glock 22/35 - I'm simply posting manufacturer data.

 

[WrongHanded]

Yes, rather than the clear gel used by Lucky Gunner I'm posting manufacturer data, HST vs HST and Ranger T vs Ranger T "cherry picking" it aint.

Agreed. And there's an interesting point when comparing manufacturer's data to lucky gunner's. Lucky Gunner uses short barrels for both 9mm and .40S&W testing (though not for all cartridges). This reduces velocity and so changes expansion and penetration results. Lucky gunner's testing in these particular cartridges is probably more important to a person who carries a short barrel pistol. Whereas those who carry service sized guns might want to refer to the manufacturer.

But when comparing two cartridges, it's best to look at the full potential of each, rather than a neutered version in a shorter barrel. Particularly because unless stated by the manufacturer, the cartridges were not designed for maximum performance in a short barrel.

And when considering that, then looking at the manufacturer's data, it's hard to come to the conclusion that .40S&W has "worse terminal ballistics than modern 9mm". But it's easy to see the opposite is true, and that .40S&W is superior. How much that superiority matters, may be up for debate, but the numbers don't lie.

 

[mavracer]

Agreed. And there's an interesting point when comparing manufacturer's data to lucky gunner's.

Actually there's a more glaring problem with using Lucky Gunner's results.
They fire all 5 rounds into the same block,

 

[The Kershaw]

How is that a problem? Are you shooting one shot into 5 separate people, or 5 shots into one person? The point of the LG test was to test a *wide* variety of popular defense loads, not just two brands owned by the same company as Federal did. It's like bragging about Jeeps 'trail rated' award, where jeep invented the rating and then awarded it to itself lol.

LG used compact size guns because more people tend to carry compact size guns, not long slide, full size duty guns. Having all that, it's easy to see 40 offers no palpable improvement or superiority over 9mm in any capacity that matters, unless you like fewer rounds per mag, more recoil, and more cost per round.

Yes, rather than the clear gel used by Lucky Gunner I'm posting manufacturer data, HST vs HST and Ranger T vs Ranger T "cherry picking" it aint.

"Federal Ammo tested our own ammo and provided this dataset, found on our own website." I can't believe someone couldn't see a conflict of interest or consider this cherry picking, whereas LG tested a plethora of ammo makes through a variety of the most common size of carry guns.

The OP wanted to know what happened to 40, and I provided an explanation. It's still a perfectly serviceable round, but there is a ton of new evidence and support to explain why the FBI and hundreds of police forces went back to 9. With this, I'll bow out because my face is turning blue

 

[WrongHanded]

"Federal Ammo tested our own ammo and provided this dataset, found on our own website." I can't believe someone couldn't see a conflict of interest or consider this cherry picking, whereas LG tested a plethora of ammo makes through a variety of the most common size of carry guns.

Wait. Are you saying that Federal wanted to make some of it's own ammunition looked bad to make some of it's other ammunition look good? How does that work exactly?

 

[Balrog]

Hard to believe people are still arguing 9mm v 40 v 45 ACP. Yet they are.

It was a meaningless argument 30 years ago. Still just as meaningless today.

 

[JohnKSa]

How is that a problem? Are you shooting one shot into 5 separate people, or 5 shots into one person?

Gelatin stretches and fractures. A block that's been shot once with a decent energy level handgun round will have a significant area that has been compromised by that shot. Subsequent shots into the gel, unless they completely miss any of the temporary stretch area damaged by previous shots will not yield valid results.

The goal of penetration tests is to find out how much a bullet will penetrate into human tissue and a gel block has been found to be a good analog. An UNDAMAGED gel block. I am not aware of any studies that relate penetration into a damaged gel block to penetration in human tissue.

 

[mavracer]

How is that a problem? Are you shooting one shot into 5 separate people, or 5 shots into one person?

The whole idea of gel testing is to have a consistent media for comparison. By shooting subsequent rounds into a block that has multiple bullet paths you don't have a consistent media. Many of LG's resulting averages are obviously skewed by one of the later rounds, stands to reason some of the others are probably skewed but not overly obvious.

Federal and Winchester's tests follow the FBI protocol for calibrating the gel for consistency.

 

[czhen]

I have the opportunity to pick one from CDNN few years ago a pristine Sig 226 in .40 just to have because the price $349.00 or similar. Found it nice to shoot a tad heavier than 1911 or my 9 mm, but very accurate. Later, on life a FNH 40 S&W with a 9 mm extra slide appeal to me, that got me thinking on a Glock 22 or 23 gen5 will make the stable complete. Ammo brass is plenty in my neck of the wood since my local range is used for LEO too.

 

[SDGlock23]

40 sucks because

* Larger round means fewer rounds in magazine
* More expensive to produce
* More felt recoil, doubly so in polymer/compact/sub-compact guns
* Worse terminal ballistics than modern 9mm

To your points, it's okay to like 9mm, people are wrong all the time and there's no crime in that.
- Larger round does mean less capacity but less doesn't mean "bad", 17rds vs 15rds or 15rds vs 13rds.
- Yes but outside of 9mm, the .40 is the next cheapest..45 is higher still
- More if the guns are identical, double the recoil? No way, I've shot plenty of 9mm and .40 Glocks side by side and yeah there's more, but I would say like 10% more, not 100% more.
- It's a stretch to say the 9mm is just as good as the .40, to say it's better is simply your bias showing. In no way will a smaller, lighter, less powerful round be more effective than a bigger, heavier and more powerful round.