Somebody posted this in another thread recently. It was in regards to why 40 is being fazed out.
__________
"Someone needs to imbed this every time there's a 9mm vs .40 vs .45 debate. The advancements in bullet technology have given additional lethality to even small pistol calibers, like the .380ACP."
________
My thoughts are: if new technology has made small calibers more lethal then how lethal are bigger calibers with the same technology

I used to know this guy who was a correctional officer, one day he showed me the little beretta .22 that he carried off duty. He commented that with the short barrel it was "as loud as a 357!" I always wondered how loud my 357 must be then, since it has about the same length barrel?

I don't know if everybody will get what I'm saying, but if a 9mm is now "as lethal as a 40 (or 45)" with new fangled bullet "x", then how lethal is a 40 with bullet "x"? Now the 40 would still be better, right?

Luckily we live in America where we have choices. There's lots of calibers, just pick one.

We aren't interested in lethality, we're interested in stopping a deadly threat as quickly as possible. This may or may not include killing the BG.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, it doesn't matter one whit whether the BG expires in the ambulance or the ER due to differences in bullet *lethality* if the BG has sufficient time to do you in beforehand.

Tomac

Handguns suck. A shot to the dome with most calibers will stop the threat. I would worry more about your proficiency with your carry gun than the weak caliber it shoots.

Modern bullet technology has made the 9mm good enough whereas the larger bullets were always ahead of the 9mm. The 9mm has finally caught up to the bigger bullets. Now that it is good enough everyone is jumping ship to it because it's cheaper, lighter recoiling and in some cases it carries a round or two more. The .40 has one advantage over the 9mm which may not be too much of a concern to the average Joe. The .40 penetrates  auto glass better then the other calibers. I would think since it does well against glass it would do better on bone too.

Historically that has been so & I have said the same thing but I was corrected; it seems there is a load or 2 out there now in 9mm that is just as effective now. Admittedly as a non LEO it's not something I worry about.



 

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2016/10/6/clapp-on-handguns-the-40-is-a-better-choice-than-the-9-mm/

A whole article offering nothing.

It offers the same argument we've had for many years, bigger is better.

And offers nothing in the way of proof about anything - it's worthless. However that's SOP for most gun articles.





 

I'll run off to the Internet to find some article to regurgitate and which will be rejected out of hand anyway.

With the understanding that all handgun cartridges pretty much suck for "instant incapacitation" in general, let's consider a few things.

The argument that 9mm is practically as effective as .40 is always based upon using "modern premium" bullets.  That's fine, as long as you have them.  But what if you don't?  I think I'll take that nice, wide meplat of the .40 over the round nosed 9mm or .45 ACP, thank you.

I've read the FBI's treatise on why it's switching to 9mm.  In the end, it boils down to wanting to better their qualification scores because the majority of FBI agents have desk jobs*.  Moving down to a smaller caliber helps with checking the requal box.  One hundred years ago, .32 S&W Long was considered sufficient for law enforcement too... until it wasn't.
Some police departments are following the FBI's lead.  This is not due to any deficiency of the .40, but due to money.  The FBI switch gives them the fig leaf to go to a less expensive cartridge while increasing/maintaining requal rates with the same/less annual training (and associated costs).  Follow the money for the motivation.

9 is fine, 40 is fine, 45 is fine.  With modern premium hollowpoints they all pretty much do the same thing.  Myself, I select the cartridge that's a little bigger and heavier than the 9mm with - worst case - a big meplat that neither the 9 or 45 possesses.

(* "9mm: The Choice of America's Elite Accountants" )

Id still carry a 9mm even if I was limited to fmj

In two months when the ammo shelves are empty again and the 9mm group can't find ammo to shoot to save their lives. I'm going to laugh when I see threads like "picked 4 boxes of 40 today", and "I only have 9mm should I buy a 40".

I won't be laughing. That will be a shitty day regardless of what diameter cartridge you prefer.

Congrats on the one millionth post regarding 9mm vs .40 etc.
They both have a purpose. I love Beretta and I will always carry the 9mm version just because it has a lore to it for me.
I like. 40, I carry it in my striker fired pistols.
If I had a 9mm striker pistol it would be a glock 17, but I don't need it.
As far as .45 is concerned, I have no need for it.
I could see myself with a HK USP .45 but that's about it.
Not much of a .45 fan unless we are talking about a vector, and that's a different story.
In my opinion, 9mm is sufficient for almost any purpose you have.
It's accurate, it penetrates, and it knocks targets down with proper shot placement. As far as pdws are concerned I don't think I'd ever want anything other then a good ol' mp5 anyway. Seriously.

Handguns are there so you can fight your way to your rifle. Period. If you need more than a Beretta 92 and two 17 round mags you are probably going to die, and should have a rifle close by.
I mean even if you look at the .40.
Do you really need more than 30 rounds of handgun ammunition?
Shot placement is key, and having a truck gun that you don't care about like a wasr10, or any old AK for that matter that will run is more important in my opinion.

I have a wasr10 with a tapco folding stock.
It works. It's a piece of shit but it runs. It fits in a small spot, and if I get into trouble I will fight my way to it.

Great post! So true!!!
I like 40. It is a good round, especially in the woods. Its not just about human dangers after all.
That said, I do have more 9 and 45 pistols.

If thats so, then why half ass it, go all the way up to .45

The capacity argument against .45ACP with "only" 9 in the gun, is the same argument  we hear from 9mm promoters who carry a 9mm S&W Shield or similar low capacity handgun.

Those same folks make the same argument against relatively high capacity pistols in .40 S&W.