Where does .40s&w fit in for a carry gun??

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ed Ames said:
Wow. You said exactly what I was trying to get people to say, but with emoticons and a tone that indicate you think you are arguing against what I said. Sorry to disappoint you, but that was my point. Get what works for you.
Click to expand...

Basically I was pulling your chain, just clowning around and no offense meant. Basically your post shows that after all is said and done...more will be said and done.;)

I agree, get what you want. This topic will probably still be argued about when the sun is just a burnt out cinder hanging in the sky. Just don't want you to be disappointed if your post doesn't totally end the discussion For All Time.:rofl:
 
WrongHanded said:
That's where science could take us, but basic human decency won't allow. If the Nazis had won WWII, we'd know for sure because they had no problem conducting those types of experiments on people.

We obviously don't stoop to such levels. And usually there are more important things going on when someone is shot with a service calibers than timing the event and taking other measurements.
Click to expand...

The data we have was, luckily, gathered in a more humane way! No one is happy to see shootings but at least we can study the data. In the modern era perhaps the best meta-study of the subject was done by Greg Ellifritz. His fairly exhaustive analysis of many gunfights and shootings show virtually no statistically meaningful difference between the 9mm, .40 and .45 ACP over the 1,800 shootings he had statistics on. The .45 ACP required an average of 0.1 less rounds per engagement yet had about the same level of instances where the round failed no matter how many rounds were fired. Statistically it was pretty much a wash. The "big three" were pretty close to equal in real world performance. Unsurprisingly, long guns were more effective. Yet even the vaunted 12 ga with 00 Buck had a surprising amount of instances where it too failed to stop the subject regardless of the amount of rounds fired.

The subject is one that's been debated for decades with no end in sight! Still, there really is no refuting results gathered from the real world. Ultimately I think given the evidence one should carry what you feel comfortable carrying. Even the .380 did fairly well although it had a higher instance of failures than the more powerful rounds.
 
Phaedrus/69 said:
Basically I was pulling your chain, just clowning around and no offense meant. Basically your post shows that after all is said and done...more will be said and done.;)

I agree, get what you want. This topic will probably still be argued about when the sun is just a burnt out cinder hanging in the sky. Just don't want you to be disappointed if your post doesn't totally end the discussion For All Time.:rofl:
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I wasn’t under that illusion. :D

I know full well people just like to argue and have a long history of making up reasons. I just figure it’s good for someone to point out the meaninglessness every so often.

I will even throw some gasoline on the fire myself and point out, regarding studies of wound effectiveness and “results in in the real world”, that it’s really easy to mislead yourself by preferentially accepting sources that support your viewpoint.

I’ll give an example: you’ll see on the Internet people citing a “meta study” attributed to a “Greg Ellifritz”. A quick search for research papers with “Greg Ellifritz” as an author turns up zero results. An Internet search for “Greg Ellifritz” turns up many references to firearms training, but nothing related to scientific research. The obvious conclusion is that there isn’t really a scientifically designed and peer reviewed meta study, there is a person offering firearms training who uses language borrowed from the scientific world to increase perceived credibility. That means there is nothing to prevent cherry picking data which builds a case in support of a preconceived conclusion. I’m not saying that is happening, but we can’t rule it out and that’s a problem. A scientifically minded person wouldn’t give that “meta study” any more credence than they’d give to a toothpaste advertisement.

We can look at our own measured results. To borrow some language, n=1 is more meaningful to the 1 than n=10,000 where the 10,000 doesn’t include the 1. In other words: If it works for you, it doesn’t matter how it ranks in a statistical study of 10,000 people that aren’t you.
 
Trunk Monkey said:
It's a legitimate question. The poster stated "It is more effective." How do you quantify that? What do you compare? If I shoot you with a 9mm and someone else with a .40 who is incapacitated quicker?
Click to expand...

I won't try to quantify it.
Lets compare potential holes using data from the manufacturer in heavy clothed gel:
HST tested heavy clothed gel:
9mm 124+P HST 13'' / .61
9mm 147 HST 12.5'' / .69
40 S&W 180 HST 12.5'' / .80

I'm not going to assume that the potentially larger hole of a 40 will incapacitate quicker, same shot placement.
However, I do assume that a larger hole, same shot placement, will offer at least equally quick incapacitation as a smaller hole.
I am going to assume that a .80 hole may potentially incapacitate quicker (How much? Don't know) than a .69 hole.
Based on killing a couple dozen deer with broadheads, my generalization is that larger broadheads make bigger holes and leave more blood on the ground.
Was that generalization true in every case? No. Was it true more often than not? Yes.

I have both a Glock 19 and 23 along with HST for both. (15 + 1) or (13 + 1) and I carry a spare mag either way.
I tend to favor the 23 with slightly bigger bullets and the unquantified "potential" of slightly quicker ASAP incapacitation.
Somewhere in this thread I said it was "on the table" of carrying the 19 rather than the 23.
Like those couple dozen deer, a human attacker could have 10 seconds of voluntary action after taking a lethal but non-CNS hit(s).
10 seconds of voluntary hostile action is a long time if they use it to shoot or stab rather than run away; which makes a good argument for greater capacity.

I'm not knocking 9mm - I think its good with better bullets; same goes for 40 and its slightly bigger better bullets.
Now, how about that Glock 32 (357 Sig) - over 500# of KE offer some pretty good (undefined) ASAP potential - amiright. ;)
 
Penetration and capacity are the two qualities of a defense round that mean the most to me.

Because of my beliefs of what is most important, I carry a 9mm.(GoldDots)
40 is 2nd and 45 is 3rd.

Decide what qualities in a round are most important to you and choose what you like. :)
 
Last edited:
Paul Harrell has some videos on youtube of service pistol caliber comparisons. He compares 9mm to .40, .40 to .45, and .357 Sig to .40.I like the way he does his meat targets. For my own reasons I prefer .40. Some people prefer 9mm. I have no issue with that. We all make our own choices.

In all honesty I believe .380 is a better choice for some people than 9mm or .40. Depending on a persons physical condition & limitations. Better a hit with a .380 than a miss with a .45.
 
Good hits count.
- Bigger hits count more.
- Better hits count more.
- More hits count more.

Tools for jobs:
- Service pistol - subsonic .45 ACP.
- Compact service pistol - subsonic .40.
- Compact CCW pistol - subsonic .45 ACP.
- Micro CCW pistol - subsonic 9mm.




GR
 
Ed Ames said:
I’ll give an example: you’ll see on the Internet people citing a “meta study” attributed to a “Greg Ellifritz”. A quick search for research papers with “Greg Ellifritz” as an author turns up zero results. An Internet search for “Greg Ellifritz” turns up many references to firearms training, but nothing related to scientific research. The obvious conclusion is that there isn’t really a scientifically designed and peer reviewed meta study, there is a person offering firearms training who uses language borrowed from the scientific world to increase perceived credibility. That means there is nothing to prevent cherry picking data which builds a case in support of a preconceived conclusion. I’m not saying that is happening, but we can’t rule it out and that’s a problem. A scientifically minded person wouldn’t give that “meta study” any more credence than they’d give to a toothpaste advertisement..
Click to expand...

You're not looking hard enough. It's quite easy to find, if you have children maybe one of them could do it for you. His methods and date are annotated within.
 
Ed Ames said:
Oh, yeah, I wasn’t under that illusion. :D

I know full well people just like to argue and have a long history of making up reasons. I just figure it’s good for someone to point out the meaninglessness every so often.

I will even throw some gasoline on the fire myself and point out, regarding studies of wound effectiveness and “results in in the real world”, that it’s really easy to mislead yourself by preferentially accepting sources that support your viewpoint.

I’ll give an example: you’ll see on the Internet people citing a “meta study” attributed to a “Greg Ellifritz”. A quick search for research papers with “Greg Ellifritz” as an author turns up zero results. An Internet search for “Greg Ellifritz” turns up many references to firearms training, but nothing related to scientific research. The obvious conclusion is that there isn’t really a scientifically designed and peer reviewed meta study, there is a person offering firearms training who uses language borrowed from the scientific world to increase perceived credibility. That means there is nothing to prevent cherry picking data which builds a case in support of a preconceived conclusion. I’m not saying that is happening, but we can’t rule it out and that’s a problem. A scientifically minded person wouldn’t give that “meta study” any more credence than they’d give to a toothpaste advertisement.

We can look at our own measured results. To borrow some language, n=1 is more meaningful to the 1 than n=10,000 where the 10,000 doesn’t include the 1. In other words: If it works for you, it doesn’t matter how it ranks in a statistical study of 10,000 people that aren’t you.
Click to expand...

 
Phaedrus/69 said:
You're not looking hard enough. It's quite easy to find, if you have children maybe one of them could do it for you. His methods and date are annotated within.
Click to expand...

It’s possible I missed one. Please send a link. I asked my son but he is 18 months old and hasn’t napped yet today so his reply was basically WHAHAAaawhaaaWHAAA! While I admit that’s more innately credible than the results I found in my own searching, it’s probably not the citation you were hoping for. I guess it’s your time to shine. Step up and show me how it’s done.
 
These posts:

Trunk Monkey said:
I don't think .40 is a bad round I just don't think there's enough difference between it and 9mm to pick s .40
Click to expand...

Trunk Monkey said:
Except it apparently doesn't. There is no significant difference in the performance characteristics of the three main service calibers. No one has been able to document that getting hit by a .40 has a greater effect than getting hit by 9 millimeter or has a greater effect than getting hit by a .45.
Pistol calibers just aren't all that. You're really not looking for which performs the best you're looking for which sucks the least.
Click to expand...

Came after this one:

Trunk Monkey said:
There's nothing new to add to this topic. Every time it comes up the discussion just devolves into people justifying their choice.
It comes down to preference. I actually like .40 but since my wife can't shoot it we buy 9mm. If .40 works for you buy .40 but please don't come here and try to convince everyone else it's the Hammer of Thor
Click to expand...

484601.jpg
 
Redcoat3340:
Do you need a reason just to buy a gun which gives you more Variety?

If you still feel like something is “missing”, Possibly begin classes in Krav Maga?

Because many attackers stay in your blind spots- and have No weapon besides their fists or a large stick, my classes began about eight months ago (at age 64).
 
Last edited:
Redcoat3340 said:
I DO NOT want to start a caliber war. I'm honestly trying to figure out (read: justify) buying a .40 for a carry gun.
Here's my question: I have a couple of "carry size" (IWB) pistols in .45 -- a Shield, a S&W 4513TSW that's been smoothed out, and a Sig 245. I also have a couple of 9mm for IWB carry -- S&W CS9, S&W 6906, and a Beretta PX4 Compact that I sent to Langdon and is darn near perfect.
I just added two 40's to the safe -- a Beretta 96 Centurian (too big for IWB but sorta compact) and a S&W 4006TSW CHP in honor of my friend, a retired CHiP who just passed away.
So where does a .40 fit into a carry rotation? If I want pocket carry I can use the .45 Shield and for a bit bigger but still handy the 4513. If I want lots of bullets the PX4 is perfect and for size and comfort the CS9 and 6906 are perfectly suitable.
So why should I carry a .40 when I can carry a .45? Or why use .40 when 9mm rounds are perfectly adequate for self protection.

I'd like to get something like a Smith 4013, PX4c in 40, .40 Shield, or an M&P compact....but I can't seem to justify spending money on a gun I probably won't carry as the .45 is bigger bullet (more "stopping power?") and the 9s can carry more rounds.

Opinions?
Click to expand...

Nice representative collection of some well-proven (albeit some older) CCW-type pistols. ;)

Some thoughts ...

The 4013 is becoming harder to find, and since it was built on the early compact aluminum .45 frame, it's not going to be thinner than your 4513, and only about half an inch shorter. If you like your 6906, you might find a 4013TSW to be a nice example of a compact .40 pistol (especially if fitted with the Hogue finger-groove grips).

I have a few .40's, myself. A 4013TSW, SW9940, G27, M&P 40C and a 4040PD (think 3913 into which they shoe-horned .40), and as a firearms trainer I've handled and used a lot of other makes/models over the years. If I had it to do over again, today I'd replace the M&P 40C with the subcompact Shield 40, as the T&E sample I tried out on our range was surprisingly comfortable and controllable using our 180gr duty ammo. Thinner and slightly smaller than the G27 and 4040PD, too. Handy and accurate diminutive .40 pistol. :) I will not be getting rid of my .40's, even though I have the same number of 9's, and have 9 pistols chambered in .45ACP. :) (Longtime .45 shooter.)

The .40 being able to be chambered in a grip frame the same size as a 9mm (versus the chunkier and longer .45ACP) is ... handy.

The .40 S&W was originally designed (by Winchester, working with S&W) around a 4" barrel. Thus, it never needed the longer barrel lengths to deliver the ballistics and "performance" it was designed to deliver. That can't be as easily said for the .45ACP, which has really required better designed JHP bullets to make it "work better" when fired out of shorter barrels. (Some of my .45's have 3.25", 3.5" & 3.75" barrels, so I started using some of the more modern, optimized .45 JHP ammo many years ago. ;) )

Combine that with the JHP bullet advances being delivered by the major American ammo makers, looking to provide viable JHP choices for the increasingly more compact pistols favored by both LE and private CCW carriers, and the .40 seems to provide a "sweet spot" when it comes to being a pretty good "compromise" in a defensive caliber. (And all calibers are a compromise, at the end of the day. ;) ) Top that off with the ability to carry an extra round compared to a similarly sized .45 compact or subcompact, and it's not a bad deal.

Sure, that compromise comes with a bit more felt recoil and muzzle snap, but anyone who's acclimated to shooting .45 probably won't be overly bothered by it. Novice, occasional or "average" shooters who don't wish to invest a lot of time to training/range practice might be better off using a 9mm, which could include the "average " LE shooter. After all, if you're responsible for training a few hundred (or thousands) of professionally armed folks who aren't particularly "gun people", the 9mm makes sense as an "acceptable" duty caliber choice ... just like the .38SPL did many years ago for LE users who found the .357MAG too difficult to master.

Despite the hoopla and recent trend of "the return of the 9mm" in LE, the .40 didn't suddenly become "less effective". It simply offered an easier option for shooters who aren't particularly interested in spending any more time than necessary to learn to run their handguns, the instructors who have the responsibility of training them ... and the armorers/techs who have to support and maintain high-use pistols over extended round counts and service lives.

Pick your compromise. The .40 S&W isn't a bad one, all things considered. It did earn a respectable service record since it first entered LE use in '90. It simply isn't as "easy" to shoot as the lesser recoiling 9 for the "average" shooter, and it can accelerate wear & tear on some guns, although newer revisions of makes/models that have been designed around the .40 from the drawing board up have helped address the service life considerations.

Another benefit of the .40? The more some practices and trains with a .40, the better the average shooter seems to do when shooting their 9/.45's. ;)

Luck to you. :)
 
Trunk Monkey said:
Click to expand...

I thought this was a good video and the guy that did the research over those thousands of shootings deserves a medal or something.

As I had been thinking, .380 isn't that bad and it appears to have as much effect as 9mm. Of course nobody is going to drop their 9's and go and buy a .380 because the ammo costs more, but they won't say that and instead will focus on 9mm shooting a heavier bullet faster (higher energy), which is the same argument for .40, but because .40 costs more than .380 and 9mm, it's a no go.

I think .32 is fine for a pocket pistol like the P-32 if used in conjunction with a good bullet like the Lehigh 50 grain. FMJ is no good, but I would prefer .32 to .22 or .25 as the .32 has the benefit of better penetration depths.

You know, the Judge with the 4 pellets of 000 Buck wouldn't be a bad choice if the spread wasn't so much due to the rifling. I mean, at 5 yards, it's fine, but further than that it's a roll of the dice. One thing that I will say is that the guy who made the video was trying to compared a 3 inch barrel Judge to an 18 inch .410 shotgun and there is a lot of velocity that gets lost going to the shorter barrel, so saying that .410 in the Judge would be half as effective as 12ga is using flawed math.

It's safer to say that .410 from a handgun is "okay." I can't see any reason why it would be worse in terms of one shot stops or incapacitation failures or whatever compared to the main handgun calibers.
 
TTv2 said:
I thought this was a good video and the guy that did the research over those thousands of shootings deserves a medal or something.

As I had been thinking, .380 isn't that bad and it appears to have as much effect as 9mm. Of course nobody is going to drop their 9's and go and buy a .380 because the ammo costs more, but they won't say that and instead will focus on 9mm shooting a heavier bullet faster (higher energy), which is the same argument for .40, but because .40 costs more than .380 and 9mm, it's a no go.

I think .32 is fine for a pocket pistol like the P-32 if used in conjunction with a good bullet like the Lehigh 50 grain. FMJ is no good, but I would prefer .32 to .22 or .25 as the .32 has the benefit of better penetration depths.

You know, the Judge with the 4 pellets of 000 Buck wouldn't be a bad choice if the spread wasn't so much due to the rifling. I mean, at 5 yards, it's fine, but further than that it's a roll of the dice. One thing that I will say is that the guy who made the video was trying to compared a 3 inch barrel Judge to an 18 inch .410 shotgun and there is a lot of velocity that gets lost going to the shorter barrel, so saying that .410 in the Judge would be half as effective as 12ga is using flawed math.

It's safer to say that .410 from a handgun is "okay." I can't see any reason why it would be worse in terms of one shot stops or incapacitation failures or whatever compared to the main handgun calibers.
Click to expand...

I may have posted the wrong video but if I remember I had hought that particular video references Greg elifritz study
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Redcoat3340
  • Locked
So Which Would You Carry? Pick One.
2
Replies
46
Views
2K
Ks5shooter
Ks5shooter
Redcoat3340
  • Locked
What Would You Carry?
2
Replies
33
Views
1K
Hangingrock
H
Redcoat3340
  • Locked
Carry Conundrum: Which Gun??
Replies
19
Views
762
Archer
Archer
Redcoat3340
  • Locked
.40 cal Recommendation for Carry
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
d'zaster
d'zaster
Redcoat3340
  • Locked
What are your favorite hammer-fired compact pistols....
2 3 4 5
Replies
111
Views
6K
Panzerschwein
Panzerschwein
Back
Top