Hickok45 did a video few days ago you guys might like.

Hickok45 357 Sig video

What excuse? Show me hard data proving the .40 is significantly better than 9mm at stopping a determined and aggressive attacker before they can inflict serious/lethal damage and I'll laud the benefits of the .40.

Tomac

There is no data.  The fact, proven by multiple studies is that 9,40 and 45 acp are all pretty much equal.  If you are willing to step up to the 357 or 10 mm range there is some data that those two are more effective but then you are talking about another level of recoil.  Actually almost all the data points say a 380 is just about as effective as anything because people don't like being shot and typically break off any attack once bullets start flying.  Interestingly the data I have seen for bear attacks is the same way.  The 9mm was surprisingly effective at stopping the attack, I guess there is something to the whole self preservation thing!

I'm going to jump in here and I am sure that I will be called an idiot by someone(s).

If we cede that energy and velocity don't mean a thing then a high capacity .380 should be the bee's knees with FMJ as that will poke holes to the depth required for common self defense scenarios while being light and reliable (something you won't get with a .22).

The thing is the reasoning for the 9mm has been "It once sucked but modern hollow points made it better" which is by default ceding that there is more than just poking holes to the story. It's definitely implying that expansion and by extension the larger overall frontal surface area and the resulting wound channel are important. Other calibers have benefited from the same technology that made the 9mm better, so I ran some numbers for .45 and 9mm because I had actually always had some fuzzy math in my head I wanted to write out, if my calculations are off feel free to correct me I did this all from memory and geometry was a long time ago.

FMJ
pi * (.45/2)^2 = .1590
pi * (.355/2)^2 = .09898
.1590-.0988 = .06002
.06002/.09898 =  .6064

A .45 fmj will poke a hole with or roughly 60.6% more surface area than a 9mm fmj will.

From Lucky Gunner tests, I picked the two HST's that I would pick for a normal SD gun, obviously barrel length, testing medium and loading will impact this.

.45 Expanded 230gr hst .85
9mm Expanded 124+p hst .66

pi * (.85/2)^2 =.5675
pi * (.66/2)^2 =.34212
.5675-.34212 = .22538
.22538/.34212 = .658775 or roughly 65.9% more surface area

A .45 hst will poke a hole with or roughly 65.9% more surface area than a 9mm hst will.

So, based on that here is the overall surface area when you add up all the rounds in some common capacities.

.45
8*.5675=4.54"
11*.5675=6.2425"
15*.5675=8.5125"
16*.5675=9.08"

9mm
10*.34212=3.4212"
18*.34212=6.15816"
19*.34212=6.50028"
21*.34212=7.18452"

If, after meeting the minimum penetration standards, expansion and bigger holes are what matters, then a good .45 self defense round objectively beats out 9mm for total surface area with all rounds on target even accounting for capacity (arfcommers never miss so we don't need to account for that). I would venture to guess that some other .50 or larger caliber rounds are better on paper too, the detriment would be availability of both platforms and good ammunition there.

We know.

People who split hairs like the guy above me - it's like arguing over which car is faster based on the redline of the engine being 5000 vs 6000. Who cares.

Performance is all that matters and the real world data says it's a wash.

Then what matters is capacity, recoil and cost.

All of which is very thorough and interesting, but expansion is only a factor in making the most of a "bad shot" (one that doesn't hit the vitals). Penetration turns potentially-bad shots into good shots, by letting them get deep enough to hit the vitals. A .17" hole through the heart or brain is as effective as a .50" one. Your data illustrates that .45 will crush more tissue and cause more blood loss if you're a terrible shot and don't hit anything useful in all those rounds. If you can shoot worth a shit, there is no functional difference because they will both poke holes through the vitals, and 9mm will do it more times per magazine and with less recoil/boom/weight.

I was under the impression 40SW was better through auto glass?

Agreed 100%.  It is the only reason one of my 1911 is a 9MM.  Its cheaper to shoot than 45ACP.

There has been a lot of semantics in this thread.  Even if a 40SW is only 5% "better" (however "better" is defined) than a 9MM ... I'll take the 5% advantage if I can shoot the 40 as well as the 9. Likewise, if the 45ACP is 5% better than the 40SW then it is 10% better than the 9MM.

Outside of LEOs and Military, I don't think capacity is all that important for the regular armed civilian.  How many rounds fired does the average violent encounter involve?  I'll have to research this, but I'm 100% CONFIDENT it isn't 15 ... or even 10.  I'm guessing 2-3 is the average.   The world famous O.K. Corral gunfight lasted 30 seconds with a total of 30 rounds fired. It had eight people (seven shooters) meaning each combatant had an average round count of 4.2 rounds.  This is one of the most famous gunfights in history.

The exceedingly famous (and germane) 1986 FBI Miami gun fight had a total of 131 rounds fired.  Eight FBI agents fired their weapons as did the two criminals.  This means 13.1 rounds average between good and bad guys. This is probably one of the most analyzed (strategy / tactics / gear) fights in history.

BOTH OF THESE EXAMPLES were LEO gun fights.  How many rounds does a non-LEO man or woman need when going to Wal-Mart for milk and eggs?  Seriously, the capacity debate is overwrought.  I understand why people want as many rounds as possible, but they should want each round to have the maximize effectiveness.  5% (arbitrary number used for the sake of this post) is still a 5% gain in performance...even if it means the gun has 3 less rounds in it.  I think shooting statistics will yield you are exceedingly unlikely to shoot enough to get to those last 3 rounds.

2 to 4 rounds fired in average deadly encounter per Shooting Illustrated:


"Depending upon which source one chooses to study, the average number of rounds fired in a deadly encounter is between two and four. So the guy who likes to bet his life on averages would say that he is good to go with a five-shot, snub-nose revolver with no extra reload."

July 17, 2018  - Shooting Illustrated

The article goes on to talk about various LEO applications which again, do not apply to most of the people carrying guns today.

According to the Washington Post 3,000,000 Americans carry a loaded gun daily in 2017 ...

Lib Post Article

According to the Dept of Justice there were a little over 1,000,000 sworn police officers in 2012 ...

Stats Article

Therefore, there are roughly 3x more armed civilians than LE walking around daily.

Again, I only draw this distinction because I 100% agree that capacity is important for military and law enforcement.  I do not think it is that important for civilians (and no I'm not a libtard that is anti gun ... I just think civilians who select a 9mm solely because it holds more rounds are missing the overall picture).

If you can shoot a 9mm well, and are comfortable carrying a 9mm ... good.
If you can shoot a 40SW equally well, and are comfortable carrying a 40SW ... better.
If you can shoot a 45ACP equally well, and are comfortable carrying a 45ACP ... best.

***If you can shoot a full house 10MM (say 200gr traveling at 1200 fps ... the old Norma load) equally well, and are comfortable carrying a 10MM .... bestestest ever *** (but this is a debate for another time).

So, 380 is better than 9mm then? It has adequate penetration with centerfire reliability while being smaller and lighter for carry with lower flash and recoil than a 9mm.

Your argument is based on the flawed premise that .380 is comparable to 9mm terminally, which has been shown repeatedly in tests and evals to not be the case. 9mm is comparable to .40 and .45, .380 is not comparable to any of them. The other issue with that is the firearm selection; if there were a .380 that could match, say, 9mm 147gr HST performance and reliability, there still would be a severe lack of decent guns from which to shoot it. Doesn't matter how much you can improve the gas is if the only car around is a Geo Metro. For the sake of hyperbole, IF there were a .380 round that matched (for example) the performance and reliability of 9mm 147gr HST, AND every 9mm pistol on the market came in a mechanically-identical variant chambered in .380, THEN yes...you'd probably have a much more divided market, and instead of people trying to argue about 9mm vs .40, we'd all be arguing over .380 vs 9mm.

In smaller locked-breech guns, .380 isn't bad because nothing has stellar performance out of a 1-2" barrel with garbage sights and a two-finger grip. I pocket-carry a P32 loaded with hot European FMJ as my backup gun, because it will "usually" get enough penetration and is orders of magnitude easier to shoot well at 10 yards than any comparably-sized .380 or 9mm. The problem with the available smaller-than-9mm calibers is that they don't reliably get enough penetration, even though they "can". Quality 9mm ammo, like .40 and .45, will perform even after shooting through thick clothing, or a car door, or a bad guy's outstretch hand. Ammo available for the .380 is only barely adequate under ideal conditions, and when faced with those sort of scenarios it falls short in tests while 9/40/45 stay comparable.

If by saying 9MM is ‘comparable to’ you mean ‘incrementally less damaging than .40 and .45’  then I agree- somewhat.  However, .380 is also incrementally less damaging than 9MM so the claim falls apart.

Additionally, if penetration to FBI levels with expansion are taken into account, the difference between 9MM and .40 point to more than just an ‘incremental’ advantage for the .40 S&W.  One 9MM load really stands out, many of the others expand minimally or over penetrate.  Most of the ones that DO penetrate AND expand end up at around .52 where most of the .40’s that don’t over penetrate end up at around .7-.78 inches final diameter.

There is a .380 load that penetrates acceptably and expands to .52, which is often touted as totally satisfactory, many others are close.

I’d call the conflation of 9MM, .40 and .45 a real stretch.  The data shows a progression of .380, a noticeable step up to 9MM and a noticeable step up to .40/.45

Considering advances in bullet development for .380 and its ability to put follow up shots on target accurately better than 9MM and WAY better than 9MM +P (a strange trick that 9mm defensive ammo uses to try to be more like .40 but still say 9MM) Plus the fact that it already offers ammo that meets FBI specs in gelatin with a nice, 9MM-like .52 inch hole, I’d say it offers advantages over the 9MM in many situations but falls significantly behind the more damaging .40/.45

Once slightly heavier guns with incrementally longer barrels become more popular, the .380 will truly be that ideal solution- an ‘almost as good’ gun that carries 1 more round than a comparable .40

https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/self-defense-ammo-ballistic-tests/

The problem here is there's no hard evidence proving the .40 is *any* better than 9mm, much less 5% (or 1% or 10%, etc). I don't fault wanting better terminal performance, but there's no *proof* of better terminal performance.

Tomac

See, that's what I'm getting at though, the argument can't be that shot placement/reliability is all that matters and then to turn around and complain that a reliable cartridge that will meet, or exceed as 380 fmj does, basic penetration standards isn't good enough because of terminal ballistics. Clearly shot placement is not all that matters.

I agree with the firearm selection, which is a market issue - if there were more demand for .380 there would be more selection and capacity/quality for a .380 could easily match that of 9mm in such a market. Right now though this is just a discussion of the cartridge irrespective of that.

As to real world performance by caliber based on shootings, there are too many unknown variables rolled up into any statistics I have ever seen to be able to draw reliable conclusions from since bullet type and make are unaccounted for. Basically, unless you are looking at a good sample size showing the results of shootings only with best in class defensive rounds for the calibers in question, the statistics will be too diluted by the likely much more common shootings with FMJ and cheap non-expanding "hollow points" to be able to conclusively say anything.

That's back to math again, if you have 10,000 shootings but only 100 of them used good defensive rounds, even if those performed much better than the other shootings in that group of 10,000 they get washed out. Further on top of that it may be that in one caliber good HP's are much more commonly used in another caliber because of cost or availability and that in turn makes that caliber look better overall. This is why ballistics gel exists, to get normalized and comparable results to insulate from the completely unknowable chaos of the real world and, terminally, just like a good .380 is outperformed by a good 9mm in gel, 9mm is outperformed by .40 and .40 is outperformed by .45

I carry a 9mm for the record, but in discussions like this I always have to revert back to individuals that have shot game with service caliber weapons either for sport or culling. In general, what you’ll hear from pretty much everyone is that .40 and .45 acp perform better than 9mm.

This is different than shooting in self defense where the differences between the calibers narrows for any number of reasons, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say the calibers are equal.

Very interesting.

However that's assuming that one can score the exact same percentage of hits with a 45 that they can with a 9mm.

If so, than .40 and .45 has 9mm beat. If not, you're better off with the 9.

Carry the gun/caliber that you shoot best that provides sufficient penetration, that's my baseline but all handguns are relatively poor 'stoppers' regardless of caliber or bullet used.
Beyond that, larger calibers are no guarantee of reliable terminal effectiveness against aggressive and determined BG's: https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/

Shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary. In a defensive shooting, the goal is to stop the attack before the attacker can inflict serious/lethal injury. If a given caliber/bullet cannot *reliably* stop an attack before then, it doesn't matter if he expires in the ambulance instead of the ER. All handguns underperform, period.

Tomac

For sure- I’m not at all disagreeing with what you’re saying. When I address the caliber debate in my mind, I’m comparing the two calibers shot for shot, not from the standpoint that you can shoot 9mm faster and more accurately (which I agree with).

I believe the argument is important from the standpoint of how you’re framing your argument. If you claim that you’re equally armed when you have a Glock 22 or a Glcok 17 because the 9mm allows for faster shots, better accuracy, etc. then I agree.

If the claim is made that they’re equal based on shot for shot ballistics, then I disagree. No one will claim the .44 mag and 9mm are equal shot for shot because of any number of reasons. The difference in ballistic performance from a 9mm to a .44mag is much wider than the difference between 9mm and .40, but there is still a difference between the 9mm and .40 from purely a physics standpoint. However, I would much rather protect myself with a Glock 17 than a .44 mag, but the two calibers are NOT equal in ballistic performance. Same goes for .40 and 9mm.

And I agree that the two calibers (9mm/.40) are ballistically different, but does that difference directly correlate to a significant increase in the probability of stopping an aggressive & determined BG before he can inflict serious/lethal injury?
I usually carry a 9mm, sometimes a .380, but I don't *trust* any handgun to reliably stop a dangerous two-legged threat. I think it was Col. Cooper who said (paraphrasing) "Nothing short of a supersonic telephone pole will stop a man 100% of the time."

Tomac

Significant increase? No.

Maybe a small/slight, barely detectable difference? Most likely.

If not significant, why sacrifice capacity/controllability for an insignificant increase (assuming any increase at all)?
Proof of 'small/slight, barely detectable difference' in terminal effectiveness?

Tomac

THIS...

I don’t, I carry 9mm most of the time , I just don’t believe that shot-for-shot the two are equal.

Due to the nature of the subject we’re talking about, “proof” is difficult to legitimize. The difference in energy, bullet diameter and momentum would suggest that the .40 is superior to some degree for the same- but not as drastic- reasons the .44 mag is better than 9mm at wounding. I believe even the FBI report that justified the move to 9mm from .40 mentioned that they weren’t equal, but the 9mm was better for XYZ reasons that we’ve already covered.

Hypothetical SD situation:
Determined & aggressive BG w/knife is charging you from 30'. You shoot him in the heart w/your fav 9mm/.40/.45 load. Since even a solid hit to the heart can leave 10+ seconds worth of oxygen in the brain, are we going to see any practical difference in effectiveness between any of the 3? ie: Is any one bullet/caliber combo going to stop the attack before the BG can inflict serious/lethal harm when the others don't?
I don't believe so.
Unless a given bullet/caliber combo (barring a CNS hit) can *reliably* stop such an attack before the BG inflicts serious/lethal harm, *there's no practical difference in effectiveness between any of the major calibers*.

Bottom line: Choose the caliber/handgun you shoot best, load it w/quality SD ammo that provides sufficient penetration *but don't depend upon it to stop a determined & aggressive attacker*.

Tomac

See, in your hypothetical situation is where we disagree. Given identical shot placement, the 3 calibers are NOT equal.

If that were true, why do hunters or people culling deer note that the larger calibers have been more effective? I acknowledge that evidence here is completely circumstantial, but numerous people have posted that very thing on this board. In fact, larger caliber/heavier projectiles are a good portion of the evolution of hunting ammunition.

Again, even the FBI didn't say that the .40 and 9mm were equal.

A good friend of mine is absolutely lethal on white tail's with a little .250 Savage and leaves bigger bores home,
a spine or brain shot drops em in their tracks and heart shot they go 50 + / - feet and run out of gas.

Personally I love 1911 .45's but now mostly carry a plastic 9 every day and when I read a thread like this one
I get to wondering myself, then I remember Ed and his little .250 savage, shot placement is king...
more BB's in the tube can't hurt either.

To me, the real differences are more just pedantic BS except:

1.  .40 is often available during panics when 9mm is unobtanium
2.  .40 is a snappy round.  harder to shoot
3.  .40 loses capacity to 9mm
4.  .40 guns are really cheap right now
5.  In some cases, .40 increases wear on guns due to being snappier.  
6.  .40 brass is harder to collect on ranges because it's not nearly as common as 9mm

Gun shots though....meh.  They are all handguns.

9mm vs 40 S&W vs 45 ACP vs 357 mag/sig is a discussion or argument that will still be going on 25 years from today.  It is no different than chevy vs ford vs molar.

One person thinks performance item "A" is the most important factor, while the next person thinks performance factor "B" is the most important.  Penetration/expansion/velocity/energy/capacity will be argued over as long as there are people with differences of opinion.

Carry whatever you like, and I'll do the same.  It won't bother me if your pistol has more or less of something than what I carry, because I carry my piece for ME, not for anyone else.

Serious questions:

How many of the "muh biggar boolets!" crowd trains more than 500 rounds a year?

In my experience it's been pretty rare to find someone who is emotionally invested in the whole .40/.45 thing who spend time running structured drills, tracking metrics and training up. It certainly happens, and I know some of those people, but not the norm.

Honestly, that's not the norm for MOST people- 9mm or .45/.40 crowd.

I carry a 9mm, but in this discussion I contend that 9mm and .40 S&W are not equal so I guess I fall into the category you're calling out, and I most certainly shoot more than 500 rounds a year. It's probably not fair though, since I shoot .40 S&W for USPSA Limited. I recently acquired my new carry gun (M&P Shield 9mm) and I've shot minimum 500 rounds in the last 3 weeks running various drills to learn the gun/ USPSA practice with my modified G22.

And in what way is terminal performance (the only factor that's important) not equal in the given scenario? Even if one caliber/bullet destroys the heart while the others don't ('mere' perforation of the heart), BG still has plenty of time to plant daisies in your hair.
We're not talking deer here and if larger calibers were significantly more effective why did all these *.45* hits fail to immediately stop the BG?: https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job-clGBbLYpnqqHxwMq/
From the article: "In this free-for-all, the assailant had, in fact, been struck 14 times. Any one of six of these wounds — in the heart, right lung, left lung, liver, diaphragm, and right kidney — could have produced fatal consequences…“in time,”
It took a CNS hit to take the BG out.

If a solid hit to the heart cannot be relied upon to stop a determined & aggressive BG *before* he can inflict serious/lethal injury, how can a non-CNS hit anywhere else on the body do so?

Tomac

I've already stated that I do not believe the difference is "significant".

The .40/.45 gives you a higher probability of hitting something vital because of their greater expanded diameter. Not a significant difference.

The .40/.45 gives you better terminal performance after passing through barriers like bone. Not a significant difference.

Although a direct hit through the lungs/heart will not guarantee an immediate stop, the larger caliber rounds would cause more bleeding, possibly leading to the BG succumbing to his wounds sooner. Not a significant difference.

As stated, these are not significant differences, but they are different. Although small, the permanent would channel of 9mm compared to .40/.45 in gel is smaller.

After this discussion I carried my .40 S&W M&P while out Christmas shopping today. Still like my 9mm Shield better, but I had to represent the .40 S&W.

I foundthat 9mm was not as good as hitting what i was aiming at when striking bone on deer then .45.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LTTDgZZZFa0

I enjoyed his video(s) and very entertaining!   Different testing for different rounds by Paul Harrell - Meat target.

You'll never find data proving the .40 is significantly better but you'll also never find data that the 9mm is just as good.  Common sense will tell you the .40 hits harder and tears a bigger hole than the 9mm does, it doesn't mean the 9mm isn't lethal, it just means the .40 has the means to inflict more damage and that, utilizing common sense, is always a plus.

Well said.

What real world effect does “hitting harder” have?

What benefit does an additional diameter which is measured in the hundredths of an inch provide?

How is that quantified?

He's right about .40 having better momentum for barrier/bone performance.

9mm 115gr cheap FMJ:
115gr * 1100fps = 126,500

9mm 124gr HST:
124 * 1150 = 142600

9mm 147gr HST:
147 * 1050 = 154350

.40 S&W 165gr HST:
165 * 1150 = 186450

I’ll tell you what, you carry a 9mm for an East coast black bear, I’ll keep my 10mm for our bears.

My personal preference is 40 once the bears are asleep mostly because by the time that happens the 2 legged bad guys are generally wearing multiple layers and penetration is a thing.

Which bones in a human body will 9mm not penetrate?

I’ve seen a lot of people shot, and have yet to see one.

Is an increase of four hundredths of an inch still technically an increase? Sure, I’m aware mathematics exist.

Can the human body tell the difference in that increase? Not really.

Depends on the angle. My brother in laws skull deflected a 762x54 bullet after it penatrated his helmet.

Ive had deer ribs and shoulders and a fisher cat skull deflect 9mm causing the bullet to not reach the vitals.

Actually, i once shot a deer to far back but the rib caused the bullet to deflect into its heart. I lucked out on that one.

Better, quantify that term. If you mean an observable improvement based on metrics then sure, it probably is. How much of an improvement though? If it's barely an improvement on the terminal end is it worth any cons it may come with? Like less capacity in the same weight and size weapon, or more recoil?

I'll take a 9x19 over a 40 S&W because I'm not convinced the slight terminal effective improvement is worth the hit you take in capacity and recoil. But, maybe I'm wrong. Here's another thing to consider, which semi-auto hand gun caliber penetrates barriers the best? If 9x19 isn't the best there it must be 2nd best. I know 40 S&W isn't it.

Tool for the job though, 9x19 for LEO and .mil make a lot of sense, for personal SD outside of those rolls, I'd make an argument for .45acp in a compact sized pistol.

I'm sure a 9mm will penetrate all of the bones in the human body, but that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about deflection AFTER penetration. I used bones as an example, but windshields would be another example. Any test I've seen where people shoot through a windshield shows the .40/.45 deflecting less and then penetrating more. Is this a deal breaker for the 9mm? No, not for me, it's just a difference. Since the claim is that 9mm and .40 are equal, I'm merely providing examples where they're not.

You said: "Can the human body tell the difference in that increase? Not really."

Interesting. You got any data to prove that statement?

It depends on how you're defining "penetrates barriers".

If you mean, "What caliber is most likely to penetrate hard barriers" then the 9mm is the winner since it usually has the highest velocity.

If you mean, "What caliber does a better job terminally after penetrating barriers" then the 9mm is not the winner. Both the .40 and .45 deflect less and generally penetrate deeper after passing through barriers.

Right, but if a threat hides behind say a soda machine or cooler in a gas station, .45acp sure isn't going through, 9x19 might, would .40S&W? I doubt it,  though it stands a better chance than .45acp. You gotta hit the threat for terminal ballistics to even come into mattering.

I carry a 9mm daily and for me the lighter firearm, increased capacity and decreased recoil make it worth it but I believe there is a trade off. I don’t buy into chasing ft pounds or other numbers but I have to think the momentum of bigger rounds like 180 gr 40 and 230 grain 45 have to help in some situations. Especially barriers like auto glass and doors and also long bones like outstretched arms.

I can't back this up with any data, but if there was a case where a barrier had to be penetrated and it was the exact thickness that 9mm could penetrate, but .40 S&W couldn't, the terminal performance of the 9mm AFTER the barrier would be shit. Shit to level that it may not even pass through a rib or the skin- 1-3" of penetration in ballistic gel. Just my thought.

I doubt that anyone will ever be involved in enough gun fights to truly see a difference between calibers. There are so many variables, the most important being shot placement. There are some famous gunfighters in history that had preferences: didn't Wild Bill prefer .36 cal Colts. I think Billy The Kid also preferred a Smith in .36 or .38 but I could be wrong. And these are men LIKELY to live or die based on their caliber.

I personally think the 40SW is the sweet spot for sectional density that allows enough velocity for penetration yet good frontal area to expand even mediocre hollow points. Anecdotally I feel it's a more efficient killer than 9 or 45. But I still shoot the 9 better and carry it most of the time.