Originally Posted By DavidY:



https://media2.giphy.com/media/bWM2eWYfN3r20/200.webp?cid=8dc8958c28ekgwlsbuc5nen3yrawf43qp7uxm7x4cbu1etwp&ep=v1_gifs_search&rid=200.webp&ct=g


I'll watch it one day, but today is not that day.  But honestly, there are plenty of simple reasons many of us have figured out.  

Cheaper ammo (even if you buy 10,000,000 RDS at a time, it's still going to be cheaper than 40s&w)

Easier to shoot (even the Billy Badass who shoots .475 Linebaugh weak hand only can still shoot a lower recoiling gun faster, because physics are a thing)

More ammo per magazine = more bangs per pow

Modern bullet design (it's not 1992 anymore and we're not buying silvertips and hydra shoks)


Blaming 9mm for Miami is silly when they completely fucked up by not bringing enough gun to deal with known violent people.

Originally Posted By dmk0210:
There were a few things I was surprised to hear. One of them is counter to one of the things you mentioned.

Originally Posted By wvfarrier:
Notice they did not choose 9mm because it was the most effective but because of the lowest common denominator agents

Originally Posted By the_professional:They can't deny that cost, ease of shooting (follow up shots, split times, etc.) increased mag capacity, and less wear and tear on guns wasn't a factor.

Originally Posted By 3ACR_Scout:The part about how they allowed manufacturers more freedom (trade space) in the 9mm design when they switched back was especially interesting to me. I’ve seen how restrictive requirements have made a mess of combat vehicles designs in the past, so it’s interesting to hear things like that in ammo design.

Originally Posted By the_professional:


I dunno, I started with a Gen 3 G22 as my first handgun because back then "Glock Fotay" and the .40S&W cartridge was all the rage. When I got hired at my current agency going on 16 years ago, I was told I had to carry a G17 or G19, so I switched to a Gen 3 G17. I've tried other guns over the years as policy changed, now full circle back to a G17. I don't necessarily miss the .40, but there was nothing wrong with it, either. I don't own any .40s anymore, but I'd be just as content with it as I would a 9mm.

2011s gained popularity because the pros were using them in the competition circuit and because they shoot better than Glocks. I've shot Staccatos and Prodigies and the hype is real, but for me...the buy-in cost isn't worth it (not to mention $60-100 mags that self-disassemble if they hit the deck and the quasi gunsmith level of knowledge and training needed to properly repair 1911/2011 pistols) and they don't do anything magical for me that an M&P 2.0 with an Apex FSS can't.

I think we're seeing more threads about carrying larger guns, because they're easier to shoot and manipulate. Mag capacity is just a bonus. Most days, a G48 is the smallest gun I'll carry off duty...and with the OEM 10rd mags, too.

Originally Posted By dmk0210:
Yeah, and the way I see it, the FBI came to the same conclusion. There wasn't necessarily anything wrong with 40S&W. But in the present day, 9mm is just as good and somewhat easier to shoot, especially in smaller guns. Capacity and cost are a bonus.

To flip it around the other way what does 40S&W bring to the table that's better than 9mm in the present day? Nothing.

Originally Posted By ITCHY-FINGER:15% more penetration and or expansion.

Originally Posted By feudist:
The truth slowly emerged over decades that none of the "Stopping Power" theories were correct...and everyone-including the post Miami 86 FBI- had them whether they admitted it or not.
Humans are not Cape Buffaloes that need .577 Nitro stopping rifles to penetrate their hide, muscles and bones; nor do they respond via some vague hydrostatic pressure wave or temporary expansion cavity imparted by handgun velocity.
Bigger holes("Lettin' cold air in and blood out") do not mean quicker incapacitation on any time scale that matters and it's doubtful they even increase lethality-which is completely irrelevant to defensive use.
That was Urey Patrick's category error in diagnosing and prescribing the replacement to the FBI service weapon.

Humans have a couple of small(fist sized) areas that-if transected- can reliably force incapacitation quickly enough to be relevant in a fight.
A hit anywhere else, with anything(even a .22lr) may cause a voluntary cessation of the attack. That may cause them to r.u.n.n.o.f.t. or it may cause them to surrender...or it might simply buy enough time for a better placed shot.

That is it.

Your ability to visualize and place rapid transecting hits on those zones(in 3 dimensions, covered by clothing, at every aspect angle and likely moving) is the extent to which you have control over the situation.
A few more grains of lead or powder, or an increase in radial expansion by an amount that has a zero after the decimal point...has no measurable effect on your survival.

Once a bullet achieves threshold penetration, anything else is gravy, whether it is expansion, transfer of energy into a large bone, or a temporary cavity. Successfully incapacitating an imminent lethal threat is only reliably achieved by increasing your Hit Factor(points/time) in training and cultivating a surgeon's-or a butcher's-eye towards an opponents anatomy.

A 9mm of 124-147 grains at 900-100 FPS is where all the lines cross as a defensive cartridge in every category of choice.
It allows for the highest volume of training in cost, wear and tear on guns and wear and tear on the shooter across thousands of rounds per year across decades.
It can be shot the fastest, from all positions and one handed from smaller and lighter pistols with higher capacity per gun.

The "modern bullets improvements" applied to .45, .40 or 10mm simply don't factor in. They still aren't rifles, and the improvement Delta cannot be differentiated in the effect on humans in defensive shootings. The "improvement" to the 9mm was enough to achieve threshold effect. Extra is now extra, and is paid for in every way.

People will assert their hunting experience or the necessity to shoot large bullet resistant bears. Whatever.
Criminals are neither whitetails nor grizzlies, and killing them humanely is not even a consideration.

Originally Posted By backbencher:Thanks for posting it OP.  

Originally Posted By feudist:
The truth slowly emerged over decades that none of the "Stopping Power" theories were correct...and everyone-including the post Miami 86 FBI- had them whether they admitted it or not.
Humans are not Cape Buffaloes that need .577 Nitro stopping rifles to penetrate their hide, muscles and bones; nor do they respond via some vague hydrostatic pressure wave or temporary expansion cavity imparted by handgun velocity.
Bigger holes("Lettin' cold air in and blood out") do not mean quicker incapacitation on any time scale that matters and it's doubtful they even increase lethality-which is completely irrelevant to defensive use.
That was Urey Patrick's category error in diagnosing and prescribing the replacement to the FBI service weapon.

Humans have a couple of small(fist sized) areas that-if transected- can reliably force incapacitation quickly enough to be relevant in a fight.
A hit anywhere else, with anything(even a .22lr) may cause a voluntary cessation of the attack. That may cause them to r.u.n.n.o.f.t. or it may cause them to surrender...or it might simply buy enough time for a better placed shot.

That is it.

Your ability to visualize and place rapid transecting hits on those zones(in 3 dimensions, covered by clothing, at every aspect angle and likely moving) is the extent to which you have control over the situation.
A few more grains of lead or powder, or an increase in radial expansion by an amount that has a zero after the decimal point...has no measurable effect on your survival.

Once a bullet achieves threshold penetration, anything else is gravy, whether it is expansion, transfer of energy into a large bone, or a temporary cavity. Successfully incapacitating an imminent lethal threat is only reliably achieved by increasing your Hit Factor(points/time) in training and cultivating a surgeon's-or a butcher's-eye towards an opponents anatomy.

A 9mm of 124-147 grains at 900-100 FPS is where all the lines cross as a defensive cartridge in every category of choice.
It allows for the highest volume of training in cost, wear and tear on guns and wear and tear on the shooter across thousands of rounds per year across decades.
It can be shot the fastest, from all positions and one handed from smaller and lighter pistols with higher capacity per gun.

The "modern bullets improvements" applied to .45, .40 or 10mm simply don't factor in. They still aren't rifles, and the improvement Delta cannot be differentiated in the effect on humans in defensive shootings. The "improvement" to the 9mm was enough to achieve threshold effect. Extra is now extra, and is paid for in every way.

People will assert their hunting experience or the necessity to shoot large bullet resistant bears. Whatever.
Criminals are neither whitetails nor grizzlies, and killing them humanely is not even a consideration.

Originally Posted By 32ACP:


Respectfully disagree, feudist sums things well, in my trauma surgery experience.  There are so many variables with human anatomy, physiology, culture, mindset, etc, etc, etc that any “stopping power” ideas are generalities, so YMMV (and usually does…)

There’s an ongoing debate on hitting the venous system & the pressure wave going up the vena cava (biggest vein) transferring the “hydrostatic force) causing instant brain incapacitation.  It might be a real event or fanciful delusion….but reproduce it on demand on a moving animal or human as a “stop” is improbable due to too many variables.

Then, there’s the variability of manufacturing techniques re: bullets, powder, etc.

So, ultimately “stopping power” sounds more like Schrödinger’s cat in application.  Look at any humans around you & even in the really skinning people, anatomy is variable.  Now, add extra fat, like most Americans have, and then, now they’re moving because that’s what humans do when getting shot at as either attackers or defenders.

In the OR, the millimeters of difference matter and one can just keep increasing bullet diameter, but the target variables still remain.   Any trauma surgeon who hasn’t seen a bullet push between vital structures and NOT kill a person simply hasn’t operated enough yet.  Every surgeon I know has story after story of “I don’t know how he/she isn’t dead!”

All firearms are compromises in portability, precision, reliability, capacity, recoil, terminal effect, etc and then the ammo is another layer.  Human anatomy and human activity/movement in addition to the physiology movements of breathing, heart beat, etc are the next variables; any cover/concealment the next variables; and other crap I’m not thinking of at the moment (clothes, body armor, etc).  The human behavior/mindset, yet another issue.

Ever see a football player pass out cold after seeing their own blood?  I have.  Vasovagal reactions aren’t voluntary nor predictable.  But hoping the “bad guy” will vasovagal after seeing blood isn’t the best plan.

Someone way smarter than me already noted decades ago: there is no magic bullet.

The FBI shootout was a learning experience in more than guns & ammo.  I think Ayoob or Taylor may have pointed out that the FBIs reactions of disbelief criminals dared to not obey the FBI was noteworthy, in addition to the FBI’s decisions of how/when to engage 2 belligerent & violent armed men.  It was more than just an “ammo failure” and all the variables I mentioned could have still been an issue if all the FBI had S&W 57s (.41 magnum) but couldn’t shoot them well.  And the bullet tech wasn’t where it currently is, but even so, there’s the magic bullet thing again.

People prefer “definites” in a world of variable probabilities.  

Originally Posted By 32ACP:  I’m not confused at all.

The last patient I operated on who was shot in the chest by a 12G shotgun at point blank range (across a room, so 3-4 feet) went to prison, alive.  The wad was in his chest wall near his heart & the pellets were in his lung, but due to angle, they missed his heart, but hit his colon, stomach & spleen.

Originally Posted By bkssniper:
But, did he stop what he was doing?

Our job isn't to kill them, it is stopping them.

Originally Posted By Mach:
very interesting, thanks for posting this.

I did not know it came down to the projectile and rested on barrier penetration,  inorganic and organic, before target penetration.

Originally Posted By 32ACP:
I’m not confused at all.

The last patient I operated on who was shot in the chest by a 12G shotgun at point blank range (across a room, so 3-4 feet) went to prison, alive.  The wad was in his chest wall near his heart & the pellets were in his lung, but due to angle, they missed his heart, but hit his colon, stomach & spleen.

Originally Posted By 32ACP:


They seemed smaller than 00 to me & I vaguely recall saying something to my assist about the size, but not birdshot tiny-sized, but it was whatever the cops were using.  Two different LEO responded (state & local police).  No, I won’t name the state (north eastern US).

I have operated on a cross-room birdshot (7-9 I guess, smaller than a BB gun) on skinny(BMI was probably 18-20) impact site was RLQ/appendix area;  17-19yo gang banger & the birdshot worked as Fudds state: the kid’s kidney was hamburger, his iliac vessels missing & we had to have vascular surgery improvise an artery & vein, the local colon & small bowel was hamburger & crap, and the iliac, psoas, etc muscles were dead hamburger.  The wad was stuck in his abdominal wall.

He probably got a hundred units of blood & blood products before he died, which was like 24 hrs later.

But the Fudds are occasionally correct, like a non-functioning analog clock is correct twice a day.  But in details, I do not know if it was a SBS or ? which is where the Fuddology fails, along with BMI, clothing (it was summer, so T shirt & jeans), distance, ammo brand, and why I point out there are many variables in weapon, ammo, anatomy, physiology, etc that are at play vs dogmatic axioms or interweb lore.

Yes, a .22 rimfire can get into an artery & embolize in the artery at a distant site (head/neck, torso, extremity) hence the goofy “.22s bounce around in the body…” silliness and get reported in trauma surgery case report, then get misunderstood by a layman subject matter “expert” who doesn’t know what it really means.  It’s similar to how afib causes a clot that gets ejected from the heart to an artery causing a stroke, intestinal ischemia or extremity embolism.

But, it’s not just non-physicians: I had a radiologist at a medical meeting (we review cases monthly to look for ways to improve care) repeat the nonsense of “AR-15 bullets spin end-over-end like a buzz-saw and will amputate limbs…”.  He had been an army physician ca. Vietnam; radiologists need to understand physics better than average (in general), and he used these 2 “facts” to erroneously state something that defied the laws of physics.  Even when I brought him articles (the internet was embryonic then) he doubled-down & refused to learn or change his position.

Kinda scary, IMO.

Originally Posted By 32ACP:
https://ota.org/sites/files/2018-06/G13-Gunshot%20Wounds.pdf

This is nobody I know.  But these sort of presentations prompt medical misinformation.  I have heard repeated a several international meetings “molten slugs if high-velocity bullets,” which is mentioned, but not true.  The first time I heard this, I spoke with the presenter on the side & was literally yelled at by him for questioning him, a “trauma expert.”  I genuflected, looked for the holiest of waters & added aqua vitea later and realized somethings simply are not “science.”

The author doesn’t understand the difference between “grains” and “grams” and used the incorrect units in his presentation.

“Wounding Power” slide…don’t bother discussing Dr. Fackler’s work…

In general, when a presentation stretches >10 yrs to get “data” to cite, you have to look at the quoted “data” carefully.  I don’t mean the data is incorrect, however, metrics, acquisition of actual data, etc often change for more precise metrics or agreed upon testing parameters.

Again, you can’t always fix ignorance, especially when degrees & position make the source an “unquestionable SME.”

Originally Posted By dmk0210:
Thanks for contributing to the thread @32ACP

I used to think bigger bullets must be better because they must have a better chance of hitting something important.

However, now I'm thinking along the lines of more bullets rapidly and accurately placed, stand a better chance of hitting something critical than fewer larger ones.  

This means having a good system: good shooter (mindset, practice and training), reliable gun that will be readily available and can be utilized for the necessary accuracy (G43 or G48 much more likely to be carried every day than a G17), and a good quality and well tested round (9mm HST or Gold Dot) that is readily available and affordable in quantity. Most importantly, be able to put those together and on demand put multiple shots into a fist size group in a spot that will most likely incapacitate.

Of course it would be nice if one can shoot multiple 45ACP or 40S&W rounds equally fast and accurately from a subcompact as they can 9mm, but I can't.

Originally Posted By 32ACP:I think in general, you’re correct.  

But everything in life is a compromise & everything is subject to possible failure of function.  And even in perfect choices & execution, shit happens.  There isn’t a surgeon alive who hasn’t done a perfect textbook operation on a healthy patient who now has a complication in spite of “perfectly executed operation/technique, etc.”  that’s because physiology isn’t always responding the way it SHOULD & we don’t know why.  It’s very humbling, frustrating, makes one question themselves, etc.  and I’m sure surgery isn’t that different from other life stuff I don’t deal with.

Training is far more important, IMO.  Be it first aid, shooting, sports, playing chess, whatever.  People get hung up on silly things vs training & the if/then failure, surprises, etc.

Clint Smith is an exceptional instructor who also was criticized for teaching the idea that ANY shot in the bad guy ASAP/first (even a foot or hand) is preferable to delaying for “perfect.”  The Patton-esque “good aggressive attack now being better than the Perfect plan tomorrow.”