What happened to 40 caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I also bet that the FBI wanted the higher-performing defense-type rounds and with some barrier penetration ability and went with hotter loads in the 600 ft-lbs range, compared to a similar 9 mm load which would be closer to 400 ft-lbs for a similar load. It's 30% less energy and about that much less recoil.

When we were still issued .40 S&W prior to the 9mm switch, we had a large batch of .40 S&W Speer 165 grain High Velocity Gold Dot Hollow Point ammo. It was only issued to firearms instructors as the general agent population found the recoil affected qualification scores, mostly for marginal shooters. This was really good service ammo. Wish I still had some.
165HV.jpg
 
If I could only have one centerfire autoloader caliber to shoot with and practice with, it would be the 9mm.

If someone is screaming at my door in the middle of the night and trying to kick it in, I'd rather be holding one of my 40 calibers instead of a 9.
 
IMO, in the end, .40 S&W was a solution to a non-existent problem. FBI agents couldn't handle 10 mm well, so .40 "short & weak" was born, and now I'm reading that they're back to 9 mm, anyway.
The FBI never issued full power 10mm to any of its agents. Never. The claim that "FBI agents couldn't handle 10mm" is false.

The FBI developed its reduced velocity 10mm load about 2 years before it began issuing the pistols to shoot it.

During the FBI's evaluation of 9mm and .45 ACP ammunition terminal performance in the late 1980s, .45 ACP beat 9mm.

The FBI agent in charge of the Firearms Training Unit, John Hall, realized that a 10mm 180gr bullet has the same sectional density as a .45 ACP 230gr bullet, and wondered what would happen if they loaded 10mm 180gr about 100 fps faster than .45 ACP 230gr. They handloaded a reduced velocity 180gr 10mm load and in terminal performance tests, using Hall's personally owned Colt Delta Elite pistol, it beat .45 ACP. This is how the FBI ended up choosing the reduced velocity 180gr 10mm load.

After the FBI chose its reduced velocity 10mm load, it began shopping for a pistol. It chose the S&W 1076, which is based off the S&W large-frame 4506, but had the slide mounted hammer drop safety replaced with a SIG-like frame mounted decocking lever.

Smith & Wesson realized that many police agencies would want to follow the FBI's lead in choosing 10mm, and, for business reasons, S&W wanted to make it as easy as possible for agencies to adopt a new pistol that would shoot a cartridge that possessed the same ballistic performance but in a medium-sized 9mm pistol frame. This would allow law enforcement agencies that already issued S&W third-generation 9mm automatic pistols to easily adopt a better performing cartridge than 9mm and .45 ACP but not have to also buy all new holsters and magazine carriers, and no extra training was needed to learn how to use the new pistols. S&W teamed with Winchester to develop the .40 Smith & Wesson cartridge to be fired from the new medium-frame S&W 4006 pistol.

Edited to add -
Modern handgun bullet design has virtually erased the major differences in terminal performance between the various combat calibers that existed years ago. With this being the situation then it makes sense to choose a cartridge that allows higher capacity with less recoil. That cartridge is 9mm.
 
Last edited:
never owned a 40, but I've shot a few. all good, until I had to load some mags. maybe it was just the one firearm I was using, but such a stiff spring and topping off the mags - put me off the cartrdige just cause it seemed ridiculous to me.
 
Edited to add -
Modern handgun bullet design has virtually erased the major differences in terminal performance between the various combat calibers that existed years ago. With this being the situation then it makes sense to choose a cartridge that allows higher capacity with less recoil. That cartridge is 9mm.

This is a statement I have seen made repeatedly through the years. I've seen gel tests that show modern premium 9mm ammunition reaches the FBI minimum standards for penetration and expansion in ballistic gelatin through a variety of barriers.

I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that round for round, a modern 9mm is as effective at wounding as the .357 Sig, .40S&W, or .45acp. I just hear a lot of people claiming that it is.

Is 9mm better than it used to be? Yes. Bullet technology has improved, powder has also improved. That means a better bullet going faster. And it's true for all service cartridges to one degree or another.

That does not mean the 9mm is just as effective terminally, per shot. Neither does lower recoil or higher capacity. So whilst it's possible that all the service cartridges are equally effective at stopping a threat, I've not seen any evidence to prove it. Just a lot of people claiming it, without providing proof.

I'm an open minded guy that believes in the scientific method. But when something appears to be too good to be true, I need some evidence before I really entertain the idea. And a cartridge with lower recoil and higher capacity, using a smaller lighter bullet, which is cheaper than the other options and also easier to shoot, being just as effective....well that definitely sounds too good to be true from my perspective.
 
Has anyone found any recent research comparing the effectiveness of the 9mm with the new bullets to the 40 and 45 WITH the new bullets being used by Law Enforcement? I read once online that NYPD and LAPD like the Speer Gold Dots
 
I've yet to see any conclusive evidence that round for round, a modern 9mm is as effective at wounding as the .357 Sig, .40S&W, or .45acp. I just hear a lot of people claiming that it is.
Handgun bullets simply poke a hole in soft tissues, including .357 SIG.

The best performing defensive handgun loads are designed to penetrate between 12-18 inches, including after having passed through various common barriers.

The penetration depth of 12-18 inches is based on informed medical opinion. A bullet not only has to reach vitals, it must pass through a vital structure to be reliably effective.

During the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistic Workshop, Fackler identified "vitals" in the torso as the upper spinal cord, heart, and great vessels.

It should come as no surprise that loads of various calibers that are all designed to achieve the same terminal performance specifications all perform pretty much alike.

The major difference is expanded diameter, which would seem to play a big role in crushing more tissue, but in practical application with handgun bullets the difference is negligible when it comes to reliably causing rapid incapacitation of a determined aggressor.

What you hit (vitals) is more important that what you hit with.
 
Handgun bullets simply poke a hole in soft tissues, including .357 SIG.

The best performing defensive handgun loads are designed to penetrate between 12-18 inches, including after having passed through various common barriers.

The penetration depth of 12-18 inches is based on informed medical opinion. A bullet not only has to reach vitals, it must pass through a vital structure to be reliably effective.

During the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistic Workshop, Fackler identified "vitals" in the torso as the upper spinal cord, heart, and great vessels.

It should come as no surprise that loads of various calibers that are all designed to achieve the same terminal performance specifications all perform pretty much alike.

The major difference is expanded diameter, which would seem to play a big role in crushing more tissue, but in practical application with handgun bullets the difference is negligible when it comes to reliably causing rapid incapacitation of a determined aggressor.

What you hit (vitals) is more important that what you hit with.

I've heard all this before. But you begin with a false premise. Handgun bullets do not simply "poke holes". If they did, there would be no wound channel in excess of the diameter of the expanded bullet. At any point in the wound track. Ever. And that is simply not the case.

We can see with wounds from handgun hunting that wound diameters are often multiple times that of the expanded projectile, if the projectile was even designed to expand at all. Tissue displacement caused by the pressure formed on the front surface of the bullet, results in damage along the wound track in excess of the bullet diameter. How much or little this happens depends on the frontal surface area of the bullet, and the velocity it is travelling at. Evidence of this effect has been observed and documented with non-expanding projectiles, and I can see no reason the same is not true for expanding projectiles. Though obviously the effects would be far less linear due to the expansion, and rapid deceleration of the bullet post expansion.

Here's some information on it:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html
 
The FBI never issued full power 10mm to any of its agents. Never. The claim that "FBI agents couldn't handle 10mm" is false.

The FBI developed its reduced velocity 10mm load about 2 years before it began issuing the pistols to shoot it.

During the FBI's evaluation of 9mm and .45 ACP ammunition terminal performance in the late 1980s, .45 ACP beat 9mm.

The FBI agent in charge of the Firearms Training Unit, John Hall, realized that a 10mm 180gr bullet has the same sectional density as a .45 ACP 230gr bullet, and wondered what would happen if they loaded 10mm 180gr about 100 fps faster than .45 ACP 230gr. They handloaded a reduced velocity 180gr 10mm load and in terminal performance tests, using Hall's personally owned Colt Delta Elite pistol, it beat .45 ACP. This is how the FBI ended up choosing the reduced velocity 180gr 10mm load.

After the FBI chose its reduced velocity 10mm load, it began shopping for a pistol. It chose the S&W 1076, which is based off the S&W large-frame 4506, but had the slide mounted hammer drop safety replaced with a SIG-like frame mounted decocking lever.

Smith & Wesson realized that many police agencies would want to follow the FBI's lead in choosing 10mm, and, for business reasons, S&W wanted to make it as easy as possible for agencies to adopt a new pistol that would shoot a cartridge that possessed the same ballistic performance but in a medium-sized 9mm pistol frame. This would allow law enforcement agencies that already issued S&W third-generation 9mm automatic pistols to easily adopt a better performing cartridge than 9mm and .45 ACP but not have to also buy all new holsters and magazine carriers, and no extra training was needed to learn how to use the new pistols. S&W teamed with Winchester to develop the .40 Smith & Wesson cartridge to be fired from the new medium-frame S&W 4006 pistol.

Thanks for the info. Learned something new.

Edited to add -
Modern handgun bullet design has virtually erased the major differences in terminal performance between the various combat calibers that existed years ago. With this being the situation then it makes sense to choose a cartridge that allows higher capacity with less recoil. That cartridge is 9mm.

I agree on the capacity.
 
I've heard all this before. But you begin with a false premise. Handgun bullets do not simply "poke holes". If they did, there would be no wound channel in excess of the diameter of the expanded bullet. At any point in the wound track. Ever. And that is simply not the case.
We can only count on a handgun bullet poking a hole in soft tissues. The bullet may first pass through an arm, a windshield, car door, or be plugged with cloth, etc., and when it reaches the torso it is only capable of poking a hole.

We can see with wounds from handgun hunting that wound diameters are often multiple times that of the expanded projectile, if the projectile was even designed to expand at all. Tissue displacement caused by the pressure formed on the front surface of the bullet, results in damage along the wound track in excess of the bullet diameter. How much or little this happens depends on the frontal surface area of the bullet, and the velocity it is travelling at. Evidence of this effect has been observed and documented with non-expanding projectiles, and I can see no reason the same is not true for expanding projectiles. Though obviously the effects would be far less linear due to the expansion, and rapid deceleration of the bullet post expansion.

Here's some information on it:
http://www.rathcoombe.net/sci-tech/ballistics/methods.html
Liver, brain, kidney, pancreas, and spleen do not tolerate stretching from temporary cavitation and can fissure and rupture, depending on where these tissues lie along the wound track. If they're located at the beginning of the wound track, where the diameter of the temporary cavity is greatest, then chances are the amount of damage produced will exceed the diameter of the expanded bullet. However, if these tissues are located further along the wound track, the mid and end of the track, then the damage will be limited to what the bullet physically touches and crushes.

Entrance wounds through ribs often show greater damage than the diameter of the bullet. The reason is because the tissues between the ribs are limited by how much they can stretch before they tear and rupture. Ribs also fragment with a beveled hole that's larger in diameter than the bullet.

Except for the brain, none of these non-elastic tissues are vital blood distribution tissues that will RELIABLY cause blood loss in rate and quantity to produce rapid unconscious collapse.
 
Last edited:
We can only count on a handgun bullet poking a hole in soft tissues. The bullet may first pass through an arm, a windshield, car door, or be plugged with cloth, etc., and when it reaches the torso it is only capable of poking a hole.

So let's get this straight. You're saying because a hollow point may not expand, we should assume they won't? That is not a good argument. The FBI testing specifically addresses such issues of potential expansion failure. So I'm not sure why you'd make such a statement, other than to bolster the "hole poking" claim. Modern defensive handgun ammunition is designed to expand reliably after passing through a variety of barriers.

Liver, brain, kidney, pancreas, do not tolerate stretching from temporary cavitation and can fissure and rupture, depending on where these tissues lie along the wound track. If they're located at the beginning of the wound track, where the diameter of the temporary cavity is greatest, then chances are the amount of damage produced will exceed the diameter of the expanded bullet. However, if these tissues are located further along the wound track, the mid and end of the track, then the damage will be limited to what the bullet physically touches and crushes.

Entrance wounds through ribs often show greater damage than the diameter of the bullet. The reason is because the tissues between the ribs are limited by how much they can stretch before they tear and rupture. Ribs also fragment with a beveled hole that's larger in diameter than the bullet.

Except for the brain, none of these non-elastic tissues are vital blood distribution tissues that will RELIABLY cause blood loss in rate and quantity to produce rapid unconscious collapse.

Not really sure what your point is here. Mainly because you've entirely failed to mention the lungs, and that's a big deal.

If someone is shooting for "center of mass" (a.k.a. the thoracic cavity) and reliably hit it, they are most likely going to hit lung tissue. The larger a wound in the lung, the more opportunity for blood to leak out from the blood vessels within. This results in lower blood pressure and rate of return to the heart. Which in turn means less oxygenated blood going from the heart to the brain. Which means an increased probability of quick incapacitation.

Hopefully you understand how the cardio-pulmonary system functions and understand why big wounds in the lungs are a significant problem.
 
Liver, brain, kidney, pancreas, and spleen do not tolerate stretching from temporary cavitation and can fissure and rupture, depending on where these tissues lie along the wound track. If they're located at the beginning of the wound track, where the diameter of the temporary cavity is greatest, then chances are the amount of damage produced will exceed the diameter of the expanded bullet. However, if these tissues are located further along the wound track, the mid and end of the track, then the damage will be limited to what the bullet physically touches and crushes.
So let me see if I really understand your position.
Early in the wound track where the temporary cavity is larger there can be more damage, but increasing velocity and/or bullet diameter to make the temporary cavity larger doesn't increase damage?
Seams downright contradictoryo_O
 
So let's get this straight. You're saying because a hollow point may not expand, we should assume they won't? That is not a good argument. The FBI testing specifically addresses such issues of potential expansion failure. So I'm not sure why you'd make such a statement, other than to bolster the "hole poking" claim. Modern defensive handgun ammunition is designed to expand reliably after passing through a variety of barriers.
The best performing bullets, regardless of caliber, penetrate about 14-16 inches in both bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth (which is a superior test of a bullet's ability to resist clogging and expand reliably than the FBI's heavy clothing test). Against all other barriers JHP bullets usually clog (sheetmetal, drywall, and plywood) or, in the case of windshield glass, turns into a mishapen hunk of metal.

Not really sure what your point is here. Mainly because you've entirely failed to mention the lungs, and that's a big deal.
Lung tissue is elastic. Damaging lung tissue does not promote blood loss in rate and quantity to produce rapid unconscious collapse. Michael Platt, one of the gunmen in the FBI-Miami shootout is an example. Agent Dove's 9mm Silvertip bullet stopped in the hilum of the lung, yet Platt was able to run around for 3 minutes after receiving the wound.

If someone is shooting for "center of mass" (a.k.a. the thoracic cavity) and reliably hit it, they are most likely going to hit lung tissue. The larger a wound in the lung, the more opportunity for blood to leak out from the blood vessels within. This results in lower blood pressure and rate of return to the heart. Which in turn means less oxygenated blood going from the heart to the brain. Which means an increased probability of quick incapacitation.
Lungs are blood processing organs, not blood distribution organs like the heart and great vessels.
 
So let me see if I really understand your position.
Early in the wound track where the temporary cavity is larger there can be more damage, but increasing velocity and/or bullet diameter to make the temporary cavity larger doesn't increase damage?
Seams downright contradictoryo_O
The temporary cavity produced by a defensive handgun bullet cannot be relied upon to permanently damage tissues. Most tissues in the human body are elastic.

Like a rock thrown into a pond that produces a splash, the temporary cavity is likewise a "splash" produced in soft tissues by the bullet.

Most defensive handgun bullets usually produce a temporary cavity no larger than about 3 inches in diameter, which most elastic soft tissues can easily stretch and absorb without permanent damage. The damage produced in these tissues is blunt trauma bruising. For comparison, a yawing AK 47 FMJ bullet produces a temporary cavity about 6 inches in diameter yet its wound is described as "mild" because the temporary cavity doesn't permanently damage soft tissues.
 
Last edited:
Really? how do they accurately measure wound channel diameter in soft tissue?
The permanent cavity diameter of tissues crushed by a penetrating bullet decreases as the bullet slows down, allowing soft tissues to stretch and "flow" around the bullet as it passes through.

The total permanent damage caused by the bullet contacting and crushing tissue plus any permanant damage caused by the temporary cavity is called "permanent disruption".

The total amount of permanent disruption produced by any given bullet is highly dependent on what tissues the bullet passes through, and where these particular tissues are located along the wound track.
 
The best performing bullets, regardless of caliber, penetrate about 14-16 inches in both bare gelatin and gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth (which is a superior test of a bullet's ability to resist clogging and expand reliably than the FBI's heavy clothing test). Against all other barriers JHP bullets usually clog (sheetmetal, drywall, and plywood) or, in the case of windshield glass, turns into a mishapen hunk of metal.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with your suggestion that because a JHP might not expand, we should assume it will not expand. It's still a terrible assumption.

Lung tissue is elastic. Damaging lung tissue does not promote blood loss in rate and quantity to produce rapid unconscious collapse. Michael Platt, one of the gunmen in the FBI-Miami shootout is an example. Agent Dove's 9mm Silvertip bullet stopped in the hilum of the lung, yet Platt was able to run around for 3 minutes after receiving the wound.

I see your anecdote, and raise you all the deer who've ever fallen to lung shots from handgun bullets. However, perhaps if Platt's wound had been larger because the bullet had been bigger and travelling faster with more energy and momentum, Platt wouldn't have stayed ambulatory for so long. But he was shot with a puny 115gr 9mm with a muzzle velocity of about 1100-1150fps. No wonder the wound to his lung didn't do much to stop him immediately. And that is pretty much my entire point. Unfortunately you seem to be coming at this from the old FBI position of starting with weak and ineffective handgun cartridges, and then claiming that handgun cartridges are weak and ineffective.

Lungs are blood processing organs, not blood distribution organs like the heart and great vessels.

Yes. And when blood does not return from the lungs to the heart, the heart cannot pump blood to the brain. I learned this in high school biology. It's a fairly simple concept. You might want to look it up before dismissing it.
 
Which has absolutely nothing to do with your suggestion that because a JHP might not expand, we should assume it will not expand. It's still a terrible assumption.
The FBI's publication "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" states exactly that.

I see your anecdote, and raise you all the deer who've ever fallen to lung shots from handgun bullets. However, perhaps if Platt's wound had been larger because the bullet had been bigger and travelling faster with more energy and momentum, Platt wouldn't have stayed ambulatory for so long. But he was shot with a puny 115gr 9mm with a muzzle velocity of about 1100-1150fps. No wonder the wound to his lung didn't do much to stop him immediately. And that is pretty much my entire point. Unfortunately you seem to be coming at this from the old FBI position of starting with weak and ineffective handgun cartridges, and then claiming that handgun cartridges are weak and ineffective.
Deer don't have arms that can block the torso like human arms do.

Lung shot deer can run for hundreds of yards before they collapse when hit by a large caliber centerfire rifle expanding hunting bullet.

Even a wound that totally destroys the heart can still allow about a dozen seconds of consciousness and willful physical activity.

Had the bullet that Dove fired been an FMJ bullet, it would have perforated Platt's heart, and both Dove and Grogan would probably be alive today.

South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates was shot by a puny .22 caliber bullet fired from a mini-revolver. The bullet entered his torso through the arm hole in his soft body armor and cut a great vessel. He quickly collapsed onto the pavement.

Yes. And when blood does not return from the lungs to the heart, the heart cannot pump blood to the brain. I learned this in high school biology. It's a fairly simple concept. You might want to look it up before dismissing it.
The goal is to compel a determined aggressor to rapidly collapse unconscious from blood loss.

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.
 
Last edited:
The FBI's publication "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness" states exactly that.


Deer don't have arms that can block the torso like human arms do.

Lung shot deer can run for hundreds of yards before they collapse when hit by a large caliber centerfire rifle expanding hunting bullet.

Even a wound that totally destroys the heart can still allow about a dozen seconds of consciousness and willful physical activity.

Had the bullet that Dove fired been an FMJ bullet, it would have perforated Platt's heart, and both Dove and Grogan would probably be alive today.

South Carolina State Trooper Mark Coates was shot by a puny .22 caliber bullet fired from a mini-revolver. The bullet entered his torso through the arm hole in his soft body armor and cut a great vessel. He quickly collapsed onto the pavement.


The goal is to compel a determined aggressor to rapidly collapse unconscious from blood loss.

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.

How old is the FBI publication? From the 1980s right? Face it, no one assumes a JHP is going to fail these days. If people actually thought that, they wouldn't care one tiny bit about expansion. But they do. Even the FBI cares about that.

Basically Shawn, your arguments all appear very weak from my perspect. "Deer don't have arms", "If Dove had been shooting FMJ...", etc, etc.

None of that means much of anything with regards to proving that a 9mm is just as effective as other cartridges. All it does is attempt to limit the discussion to instances where the benefits of greater wounding from the more powerful service cartridges, wouldn't make a difference. But even with a direct shot to the heart, a larger hole will have an effect faster than a smaller hole. That's how leaks work.

Then you put the cherry on top with the old "accuracy is most important" bit. As if I don't already understand that. Given the hit to miss ratio of even law enforcement, I think it's reasonable to assume that even when hits to the torso are made, they're probably not often made to the heart or major blood vessels. But the lungs cover a much larger area and are far more likely to be hit, and hit repeatedly.

It would not surprise me one bit if the primary cause of incapacitation from blood loss in shooting victims was as a direct result of repeated hits to the lungs. It would certainly surprise me if it were mainly due to direct hits to the heart. And even then, a bigger wound is better than a smaller one.

But your arguments all seem to add up to how a .22LR is totally adequate for self defense. Expansion doesn't matter, wound size doesn't matter, only little holes in the heart or major blood vessels matter.
 
How old is the FBI publication? From the 1980s right? Face it, no one assumes a JHP is going to fail these days. If people actually thought that, they wouldn't care one tiny bit about expansion. But they do. Even the FBI cares about that.
JHPs won't expand in some situations (I identified them in an earlier post), regardless of bullet design.

The human body hasn't evolved in any manner to invalidate HWFE since it was published.

Basically Shawn, your arguments all appear very weak from my perspect. "Deer don't have arms", "If Dove had been shooting FMJ...", etc, etc.

Yet they're all true.

None of that means much of anything with regards to proving that a 9mm is just as effective as other cartridges. All it does is attempt to limit the discussion to instances where the benefits of greater wounding from the more powerful service cartridges, wouldn't make a difference. But even with a direct shot to the heart, a larger hole will have an effect faster than a smaller hole. That's how leaks work.

The practical difference is nil.

Then you put the cherry on top with the old "accuracy is most important" bit. As if I don't already understand that. Given the hit to miss ratio of even law enforcement, I think it's reasonable to assume that even when hits to the torso are made, they're probably not often made to the heart or major blood vessels. But the lungs cover a much larger area and are far more likely to be hit, and hit repeatedly.
Placement plus penetration are the keys to rapidly incapacitating and stopping a determined aggressor.

It would not surprise me one bit if the primary cause of incapacitation from blood loss in shooting victims was as a direct result of repeated hits to the lungs. It would certainly surprise me if it were mainly due to direct hits to the heart. And even then, a bigger wound is better than a smaller one.
Dove's bullet cut a vessel in Platt's lung. Over a liter of blood was discovered in his thorax as a result of the hit. Yet the rate and volume of blood loss was insufficent to quickly stop him.

But your arguments all seem to add up to how a .22LR is totally adequate for self defense. Expansion doesn't matter, wound size doesn't matter, only little holes in the heart or major blood vessels matter.
The practical differences in wounding effects among the various common combat handgun calibers is negligible.

The .22 bullet that struck down Coates hit a structure that is immediately vital to life, and damaged it severely enough that he quickly collapsed from massive blood loss after being shot. Coates was fatally shot AFTER he'd already shot his attacker 5 times with .38 Special +P. Unfortunately none of his bullets hit anything vital. (A dashcam video of the incident can be found online with a Google search.)

What you hit is more important than what you hit with.
 
Last edited:
Anyone here with law enforcement, military, or even gang experience to comment about handgun bullet effectiveness on humans and whether they would consider the 40 retireable?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top