Not to mention 9mm penetrates deeper.....and how about comparing the 147 gr HST to the 230 gr HST...I love it when people use light for caliber bullet comparisons...

The increases in these things going down from .40 to 9 are also insignificant, particularly when shooting 9mm+p, which is well represented in all those ‘almost as good’ ballistic gelatin numbers.

A Glock 22 hold 16 rds of  .49 vs the 18 carried in a G17.  That is hardly significant.

Attached File

Bottom line: Does the .40 offer enough (unknown) improvement in terminal effectiveness* to offset the (known) decrease in capacity & controllability?
*= The ability to stop a determined and aggressive attacker before he can inflict serious/lethal injury.

Tomac

For me personally the answer would be no, but I wouldn't argue with someone who felt differently. I carry a 9mm Shield and don't sweat it, but I also sometimes carry an M&P40c. In this case for ME, my .40 is a higher capacity, but at the cost of a "bigger" gun. Recoil is lighter on the Shield, but not by all that much given the size difference. I shoot standard pressure 9mm loads in my Shield on purpose to keep the recoil down (147 grain HST).

In my mind the .40 S&W does have a ballistics advantage, but not by enough that I wouldn't carry my Shield or want to trade it in for a .40 Shield. The .40 S&W has earned a good reputation in the LEO community over the last several decades for a reason- it's been very effective. To just toss the .40 to the side and say, "the 9mm is just as effective" is ignoring the reputation it's built in actual shootings for a long time. So yes, the 9mm is "good enough" for me, but I won't make the claim that 9mm and .40 are equal.

@ O3RN  -  Thanks for the Ballistic chart.  Now I see the comparison for different rounds.

Although without it, I have already made up my mind long ago that I am staying with 40 and I have been shooting it for almost two decades now.  So, I am comfortable with the round and can shoot it accurately.

I remember recently there's other thread talking about LEO and their firearm practice or the lack of it.   9mm is probably best for them since most are not gun types, and don't spend enough time practicing.   Although I am curious as to how they will handle the hot stuff like +P , or +p+ which has the same recoil as the 40.

But to be honest, I actually like shooting 10mm as well , but cost of the practice or even full power 10mm ammo is pretty high.  To make do with what I 've got, I shoot 40 in it to get more practice.   This is another reason why I stay with 40.   Recent WM ammo liquidation also had helped me getting enough 40 ammo to last many, many years.  Besides the regular FMJ,  I am also sitting on over 2000 rds of Federal 40 HST 165 grains- @ $.08 each!

Brain, most likely yes-but if we could all score easy brain shots, then why are we even using hollowpoints or service calibers at all?

A shot to the heart does not necessarily cause instant bleedout; it is significantly larger than most handgun bullets and is unlikely to be totally compromised by a single shot. Firing something the size of a needle through the heart may have almost no effect at all. This is only more true for the lungs.

At handgun levels, expansion is useful more in its ability to cause greater damage to vitals than it is in its likelihood to hit them.

Seems like you're getting hung up on one incident. The outlier does not determine the norm. One might note the Thompson-LeGarde tests where (for all the faulty conclusions drawn) animals several times the size of humans collapsed immediately after a cylinder was dumped into their lungs...

If only CNS hits were important, then we might expect poor performance even from some very well regarded rifle rounds, where the temporary cavity tends to occur earlier in the track and may not be of significance by the time the bullet has actually penetrated to the depth of the spine.

I'll agree in that I think .40 S&W is not a very good round compared to 9mm in light of its very modest improvement in terminal performance, but this shouldn't be construed to mean that terminal ballistics are irrelevant.

I've found that .40 S&W tends to be closer to 9mm than .45 in performance. The gap between 9mm and .380, in contrast, is larger than it is between any of the service calibers.

9mm in my mind is a serious duty round, .380 is not.

Bear in mind that the more representative method of measuring expansion involves averaging the maximum and minimum expansion, as compared to many companies and casual testers who record max expansion alone. Note also that clear gel has different properties than 10% ordnance gel, although the results for many handgun rounds appear to be reasonably close.

You are correct that the sheer number of variables makes it difficult to draw conclusions purely by looking at 'street data'.

There's no need to speculate about external measures and ballistics, the simplest way is to, quote Dr. Gary Roberts, "just shoot it and measure it."

The difference in penetration is fairly small, not as large as the difference in expansion from a relative standpoint.

As tested in 2013, average expansion for 9mm 147 gr HST was about 0.63" with approx 15.2" of penetration, averaged across bare gel and 4 layer denim. 230 gr +P HST had an average expanded diameter of about 0.79" with approx 14.1" of penetration. 147 gr +P had very similar performance to standard pressure.

The current generation of 230 gr HST may have slightly better performance.

^Very much. It's been stated multiple times by ballistics experts, including those that don't favor larger calibers, that physiological damage is the only factor that correlates with greater incapacitation-and that gel is a valid, standardized method of getting some solid metrics on that physiological damage.

Why oh why do I keep reading these threads where the silly billies argue over 9mm vs .40?

Because I can't help it.  

Nope, just using that incident to show that no handgun, regardless of caliber or bullet used, can be depended upon to reliably stop an aggressive & determined attacker even w/multiple hits to vital areas.

To that end, how far a bullet penetrates or how much it expands *is meaningless unless it significantly contributes to stopping the attacker before he can inflict serious/lethal injury*.

So, the terminal performance debate between 9mm/.40/.45/etc is moot since none can be proven to be significantly more effective than any other in reliably stopping such an attack. The only advantages the 9mm has over .40/.45 are less recoil & greater capacity.

I would rather carry more and more controllable underperformers than fewer & less controllable underperformers.

Tomac

That's a pretty good way of cutting through the crap and summing it all up; I'm gonna use that.

If we're going to use freak outliers to set the standard, then we can also point to instances where headshots failed to definitively take an attacker out of the fight. This does not mean headshots are not reliable incapacitators.

In the same vein, a reliable gun is not a gun that never malfunctions, only one that very rarely does so. This doesn't mean that no firearm, regardless of make or model, can be depended upon to reliably function-or that there is no functional difference in reliability.

Realistically, you are going to have to shoot an attacker somewhere, head, body, whatever. Greater physiological damage, with all else equal, correlates with more, faster incapacitations. This has been established in wound ballistics literature for some time, and this is why objective measures of bullet damage take precedence over street statistics with any number of confounding variables.

(Ironically enough, if we actually look at the performance of the 230 gr Gold Dot used in the Gramins shooting, we see that it performs closer to the level of 147 gr HST than 230 gr HST in unprotected targets. Couple that with the decreased effectiveness of bullets through the sheet metal and auto glass that was likely involved to some extent; I would suggest this is hardly a good showing of the supposed lack of terminal advantage of top tier .45 loadings in common defensive scenarios.)

There's a difference between physiological stops and psychological stops. Caliber/bullet used doesn't matter w/psychological stops as the BG *chooses* to end the attack.

Non-CNS physiological stops before the BG can inflict serious/lethal injury? Show me such cases where a handgun quickly stopped a determined and aggressive attacker *before* he inflicted injury. Know if any cases where headshot bullets traversed the brain but didn't stop the attack? If there are any, I haven't heard of them.

Determined and aggressive attackers are statistically 'outlier' already, so what I posted isn't statistically unusual *for that type of attacker*. Remember the infamous Miami Shootout? Platt was statistically 'outlier' but was a trauma sponge nonetheless and inflicted horrific damage before expiring.

If penetrating auto glass & sheet metal is a priority consideration in your choice of caliber/bullet then go for it, I won't sacrifice capacity/controllability on the very off-chance I might need to shoot through such materials in a SD situation (I'm not LE).

Any caliber/bullet choice is playing the odds (what are the chances you'll ever need to fire a defensive handgun in SD? What are the chances the BG is a determined and aggressive attacker? What are the chances you'll need to make fast multiple hits to end the attack? What are the chances you'll be facing multiple assailants? What are the chances you'll need to reload? What are the chances you'll need to shoot through auto glass, sheet metal or other light barriers?), so feel free to use whatever makes you comfortable. However, w/o proof, don't try to tell me that .40/.45 terminal performance is enough to justify the factual decrease in capacity/controllability when compared to 9mm.

All handguns underperform, period.

I wonder if guys used to sit around in saloons and brothels 140 years ago debating if the better man stopper was a .45 long Colt, .44-40, or .38-40?

Id bet a beer on it.

I think you have found the essence of the debate.
I will answer by saying that with some loads, the answer is yes. Poor loads in 40 (like Silver Tips, typical economy "white box", older Hydra Shok etc) will work better in the 40 and can truly suck in the 9mm.

If I had to buy my carry ammo at Wal Mart (not any more) or some poorly stocked gun shop, I'd choose the 40 over 9.

The best loads in 9mm are 99% as good as the 40 and not worth the cost in recoil and capacity.

I would say yes.  Part of that is because the capacity difference isn't that great and neither is the difference in controllability in comparably sized handguns. Anyone serious about getting good can get good using the .40.  In the real world, fractions of a second only matter to competitive shooters, it makes no difference elsewhere.  The larger bullet of the .40 will destroy more tissue than the 9mm will, so it's easy to arrive at the logical conclusion that the .40 is more effective.

No-one's arguing that the .40 or .45 can't destroy more tissue than 9mm. However, the amount of tissue destroyed by handgun rds doesn't correlate to terminal effectiveness in stopping an attacker before he can inflict serious/lethal injury. If the difference is only expiring in the ambulance instead of the ER then that 'improvement' is irrelevant for SD needs.

Why do I keep hammering that point? *Because it's the only point that matters when defending your life against a lethal threat*. Tissue destroyed, blood loss, etc is moot if the BG manages to inflict serious/lethal injury before incapacitation.

Determined and aggressive attackers are already statistically 'outlier', but those are the only attacks where the ability to stop the attack quickly is paramount. In the vast majority of SD shootings, caliber/bullet doesn't matter in achieving a psychological stop, carry/use whatever you like. Against a 'trauma sponge' like Platt, no 9mm/.40/.45/.38/.357/etc handgun is going to stop him quickly w/o a CNS hit so why sacrifice controllability/capacity for no proven increase in effectiveness?

Proven: .40 has decreased capacity/controllability compared to 9mm. Unproven: .40 is significantly more effective than 9mm stopping aggressive and determined attackers, enough to offset the decrease in capacity/controllability.

Tomac

(Long post quote auto-snipped)

All handguns underperform, period.
"If you are willing to commit to your thought process, then I would recommend saving up for a .22 magnum or 5.7x28 and aiming exclusively for the head, since the spinal cord is difficult to hit out of anything but luck and greater bodily damage is supposedly irrelevant."

I never stated "greater bodily damage is supposedly irrelevant", merely unreliable from a handgun as a gauge for stopping an aggressive & determined attacker. Do a search and you'll find many, many posts by me stating "shot placement and sufficient penetration are paramount, all else is secondary." The thought process I commit to is not to trust any handgun to reliably stop an aggressive & determined attacker, and as previously stated, I'd rather carry more and more controllable underperformers than fewer & less controllable underperformers.

If you shoot .40/.45/(insert fav caliber here) better than 9mm, then by all means go for it.

Tomac

We've went from "They're all functionally equal, this shooting proves it" to "I guess outliers are not reliable but my case wasn't an outlier for this kind of attack, I bet there aren't any non-CNS stops" and now we have "Bodily damage is not irrelevant, but the amount of tissue destroyed by handgun rounds doesn't correlate to terminal effectiveness and I don't consider it during cartridge selection" (i.e. so irrelevant, then).

My points stand. I will reiterate that .22 magnum and 5.7 have lower recoil and greater magazine capacity while maintaining 12+ inches of penetration, and that Platt is a poor example for your definition of "damage sponge" when only a single woefully underperforming bullet penetrated vital structures.

Just stop. No .22mag or 5.7 will pass fbi protocol.

Which part of FBI protocol, exactly? Is it the steel and auto glass performance that he's not (actually justifiably) terribly concerned with anyway? Their penetration is fine in bare gel.

Mind, I'm no personal advocate for either round-I think they're poor choices for self defense. But if you contend that tissue damage in handguns makes no real difference in effectiveness, and that controllability and capacity are the only factors worth considering given adequate penetration, then selecting one of those two, or a similar such cartridge, would be the logical decision.

No?

I don't believe you can claim the part in red to be true. For example, if the shot that fell short of hitting Platt's heart had been a .40 that actually penetrated the heart, incapacitation would have been much quicker.

Also, why do hunters notice that .40/.45 lead to quicker incapacitation on game animals?

If the 9mm Silvertip that stopped 1" short of his heart had been a .45/.40 Silvertip, the bullet still wouldn't have reached the heart.
It was the Silvertip design that failed to penetrate sufficiently, not the caliber.

We're talking about stopping aggressive and determined attackers, not anecdotal game hunting experiences.

Tomac

I disagree. The 115gr Silvertip is a light penetrating bullet. If a 40 existed back in '86, or a 45 was used, (or a modern 9mm like HST) it likely would have caused more damage to the heart. How much difference it would have made I don't know.

In the case of the famous '86 shootout, the 9mm Silvertip went through Platt's wrist first, then nicked the heart. A little more penetration and especially more diameter would have stopped him quicker.

Destroying more tissue would certainly correlate to stopping an attacker more quickly than less damage.  I don't imply the 9mm does a bad job, I simply say the .40 and .45 damage more and more damage absolutely can stop an attacker more quickly.  Surely you wouldn't argue that less damage is better at stopping an attacker quickly, right?   Obviously shot placement is king and more damage won't make up for bad shot placement, but you do claim there is a definitive decrease in controllability and capacity but also state that the larger bullet, which does more damage, isn't proven to increase effectiveness.  In instances where something major is barely missed, a larger bullet could have proven effective.

We can't go back in time and swap the 115gr 9mm load used on Platt for a 165gr .40 or 230gr .45 so there's no possible way we can ever know if the outcome could have been different with those, but it's safe to say it wouldn't have done any worse.   I would say that the difference in effectiveness is certainly worth it if you're comparing 15+1 vs 17+1 or 13+1 vs 15+1, although maybe not if it's a 9mm vs something like a 7/8+1 1911 .45.  If you have 5% more recoil but 10% more effectiveness, wouldn't that be worth it?  I'll state it again, fractions of a second in split times mean nothing to anyone other than competition shooters, anyone can shoot both 9mm and .40 fast and accurate enough to be completely effective with, so why not choose the round that pokes bigger holes and does more damage?

Partner must be one tough SOB... f, I bet he hurt for weeks.

I have a few dozen 9mm pistols, but picked up a G 27 after a panic years ago.

I shoot that thing really well, it carries easy, and it's got 10+1 rounds with the mags I carry.

I don't shoot it any faster/better with the 9mm conversion barrel installed.

That said, I DON'T shoot it as well as my VP9sk.....