What happened to 40 caliber?

WrongHanded said:

Standing on the shoulders of giants again huh? So tell me how much wounding a cartridge with 0.0ftlbs of muzzle energy creates? If you want to make an argument that how the energy is applied matters, then do that. But don't say energy irrelevant.

But along this line, why is it that cartridges with around 350ftlbs of energy only do crushing damage to the tissue in front of them, and cartridges with 700ftlbs of energy create wounds measurably in excess of the bullet diameter? I'm still waiting for you to explain this, and you still keep avoiding it.

I know why you can't explain it. It's because it's not in any of those articles you keep referring to from 20 to 30 years ago. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

Click to expand...

You advised me to consult with a physicist, and when I did you don't like the answer.

Maybe you should read some of those old, obsolete articles. You might learn something.

You can start with the FBI's "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", which lays out the FBI's rationale for the ammunition it selects.

Shawn Dodson said:

You advised me to consult with a physicist, and when I did you don't like the answer.

Maybe you should read some of those old, obsolete articles. You might learn something.

You can start with the FBI's "Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness", which lays out the FBI's rationale for the ammunition it selects.

Click to expand...

Are you ever going to answer my question Shawn? Or are you just going to keep ignoring it? Because you do keep ignoring it.

Here it is again: If handgun bullets only cause wounds of the diameter of the bullet by crushing tissue, why do handgun hunters keep observing wounds measurably in excess of the bullet diameter?

Kleanbore said:

Speer executives say that they consult continually with the FBI tTaining Academy Laboratory; they share their latest test data, and they review field results data regarding the actual performance of their ammunition in law enforcement service.

Except for putting a scale next to tracks in gel test blocks, I do not know, and I do not care.

"Total amount of wounding"? What is that?

What is really important is field performance data regarding effectiveness..I haven't seen them. Nor have I heard anything regarding allegations that today's premium duty ammunition is performing inadequately.

Click to expand...

Forget gel blocks. Forget Speer and the FBI shooting gel blocks. How is it done in human shooting victims? That's where the rubber meets the road.

"Total amount of wounding" would be the entirety of damage done to living tissue by the bullet. How do they figure that out in an autopsy to b able to compare and contrast cartridge efficacy?

WrongHanded said:

Are you ever going to answer my question Shawn? Or are you just going to keep ignoring it? Because you do keep ignoring it.

Here it is again: If handgun bullets only cause wounds of the diameter of the bullet by crushing tissue, why do handgun hunters keep observing wounds measurably in excess of the bullet diameter?

Click to expand...

I explained the reasons many posts ago, e.g., the wound track goes through non-elastic tissues or elastic tissues that are limited in their ability to stretch and absorb the temporary cavity due to physical size or being restrained by connective tissue or both.

WrongHanded said:

But along this line, why is it that cartridges with around 350ftlbs of energy only do crushing damage to the tissue in front of them, and cartridges with 700ftlbs of energy create wounds measurably in excess of the bullet diameter?

Click to expand...

It has to do with the outward velocity of the tissue being displaced out of the way of the bullet. If the velocity of a small caliber bullet is fast enough, or if a slower bullet is large enough in caliber such that displacement volume per time creates fast enough outward velocity, at a certain point the tissue is accelerated to such a speed in which it's own momentum will exceed its elastic potential. If below this outward displacement volume, it will spring back.

Bullet design is a big factor... think of those screwdriver head shaped 9mm bullets (Lehigh Defense). Those are specifically designed to displace as much tissue volume as possible outwards from the wound track, thus exceeding the elastic potential of the tissue with only ~350 ft/lbs energy levels.

There are so many variables that this comment could potentially turn into a book if I keep going. Lol

But I do not agree with statements that suggest ft/lbs is an irrelevant factor. In fact, it's one of the most important, because that is the energy you have to work with.

Ethan Verity said:

It has to do with the outward velocity of the tissue being displaced out of the way of the bullet. If the velocity of a small caliber bullet is fast enough, or if a slower bullet is large enough in caliber such that displacement volume per time creates fast enough outward velocity, at a certain point the tissue is accelerated to such a speed in which it's own momentum will exceed its elastic potential. If below this outward displacement volume, it will spring back.

Bullet design is a big factor... think of those screwdriver head shaped 9mm bullets (Lehigh Defense). Those are specifically designed to displace as much tissue volume as possible outwards from the wound track, thus exceeding the elastic potential of the tissue with only ~350 ft/lbs energy levels.

There are so many variables that this comment could potentially turn into a book if I keep going. Lol

But I do not agree with statements that suggest ft/lbs is an irrelevant factor. In fact, it's one of the most important, because that is the energy you have to work with.

Click to expand...

Thanks Ethan. I was actually asking Shawn because he continues to avoid either denying or admitting that such results are possible with handgun cartridges.

Shawn Dodson said:

I explained the reasons many posts ago, e.g., the wound track goes through non-elastic tissues or elastic tissues that are limited in their ability to stretch and absorb the temporary cavity due to physical size or being restrained by connective tissue or both.

Click to expand...

You really didn't. You didn't even admit that those results were possible with handgun cartridges. Now you want to put it all down to tissue elasticity.

I'll bottom line this for you. Your assertions are based on the word of people who seem not to be willing to provide their scientific methods for wounding valuations on living flesh, and seem not to have provided autopsy results or any real detail about how they came to their conclusions. They also have openly stated that they "wisely" ignore concepts they disagree with, whilst neither providing any details as to the reason for the dissenting opinion, not disproving it. Basically, I question the scientific valid of much of their information. Particularly because some of their assertions are baseless, and others can be proven to be inaccurate.

So do you have any actual evidence to prove the 9mm is just as effective as other more powerful service cartridges, or do you not?

Kleanbore said:

How about Speer, the FBI, and field reports?

Effectiveness is "where the rubber meets the road".

I doubt that they do. We have seen discussion about the similarity of wound track results from different loads.

Given adequate penetration and expansion within the service caliber range, effectiveness is a function of factors peculiar to the person shot ,and to what is hit. What is hit may depend a lot on the number of hits.

Click to expand...

So again, there's no actual evidence. Just claims that evidence exists.

Effectiveness is where rubber meets the road huh? Yet Fackler and crew dismissed such evidence in favor of gelatin tests for penetration.

And you're back to penetration and expansion again. Why is expansion important?

Still love the 40S&W along with most other cartridges. For actual carry its a favorite of mine along with 357sig provided the pistol can comfortably handle it. One reason being that I trust it to penetrate the skull of a Pitt Bull attacking my kids if necessary. However for something like a small subcompact or Micro subcompact I dont really care for it. However... I dont follow a lot of the current mentality going on to just dump magazines as fast as possible as I am more "old school" in terms of shooting. I understand where people are coming from with that though. My feeling is it gets borderline reckless for 99% of shooters but thats just me and I dont expect people to agree with that. So it is what it is.

I love the 40S&W though. Its a shame so many people and manufacturers are ignoring it along with the 357Sig. It will turn back around eventually. People thought wondernines were pretty dead too not long ago and 10mm was practically in a coma outside of a fairly small demographic of the enthusiests.

Never understood the desire to kill off cartridges or segments of the firearms industry but thats just me.

WrongHanded said:

You really didn't. You didn't even admit that those results were possible with handgun cartridges. Now you want to put it all down to tissue elasticity.

Click to expand...

The entire context of my discussion is about common defensive handgun calibers.

Here's a link to my post #110

WrongHanded said:

I'll bottom line this for you. Your assertions are based on the word of people who seem not to be willing to provide their scientific methods for wounding valuations on living flesh, and seem not to have provided autopsy results or any real detail about how they came to their conclusions. They also have openly stated that they "wisely" ignore concepts they disagree with, whilst neither providing any details as to the reason for the dissenting opinion, not disproving it. Basically, I question the scientific valid of much of their information. Particularly because some of their assertions are baseless, and others can be proven to be inaccurate.

Click to expand...

All you do is complain, quibble, and question but you provide no evidence to support any of your claims.

When offered evidence, you deflect and refuse to consider it.

WrongHanded said:

So do you have any actual evidence to prove the 9mm is just as effective as other more powerful service cartridges, or do you not?

Click to expand...

With all the police agencies using or switching to 9mm, many of them having previous experience with other "more powerful" cartridges, this is something we call a clue. Modern bullet design has virtually eliminated any substantial difference in wounding effects between common handgun combat calibers.

It goes all the way back to the 1987 FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop. What the bullet hits is more important than what you hit with.

You're more than welcome to present any valid and verifiable evidence you have to disprove my statement.

Shawn Dodson said:

When offered evidence, you deflect and refuse to consider it.

Click to expand...

Here's the root of the issue. You think someone else's opinion, with no scientific studies provided to back it up, is evidence. I don't. I think a 20 year old opinion, is just an opinion. To believe it without credible scientific documentation is akin to indoctrination.

You've read all those article with gusto, but where did you prove to yourself that the assertions and claims made were verifiable? You have not shared and true science, no an data sets. You have not shared anything I would ever consider as evidence.

Kleanbore said:

Tissue elasticity is the determinant. By the way, Lehigh Defense makes all kinds of claims, some of which allude to alleged moved permanent wounding cavity. That one is not supported by any independent testing that I have seen. We have discussed that on THR before.

Get real! Consumers cannot and do not measure and compile, or obtain, volumes of highly technical data, some of which are proprietary, and use them to draw their own conclusions. They rely on others who are equipped to do so.

Your attempt to do it yourself is a fool's errand.

Click to expand...

You should look at some meat tests of the Lehigh defense ammo. Google is your friend.

Regarding the lack of compiled scientific data, that's exactly my point. None is ever provided to back up claims of wounding with handgun bullets, or how similar they all are. We have no idea how "experts" are coming to their conclusions. Blind faith.

WrongHanded said:

Here's the root of the issue. You think someone else's opinion, with no scientific studies provided to back it up, is evidence. I don't. I think a 20 year old opinion, is just an opinion. To believe it without credible scientific documentation is akin to indoctrination.

You've read all those article with gusto, but where did you prove to yourself that the assertions and claims made were verifiable? You have not shared and true science, no an data sets. You have not shared anything I would ever consider as evidence.

Click to expand...

This is hilarious.

Yes, I'm "just a reader".

Kleanbore said:

None are ever provided to whom?

Click to expand...

To me, Kleanbore, to me. Lots of claims, no data to back it up. Which leads me to question the validity of those claims, particularly when there is real world evidence to the contrary.

Shawn Dodson said:

This is hilarious.

Yes, I'm "just a reader".

Click to expand...

If you're a researcher, show me some research. Show me some detailed studies of various handgun wounds from cartridges ranging from .22lr to .44 Magnum, that brings you to the conclusion that handgun bullets only poke holes. Back up your claims with detailed scientific evidence.

You claim the reason handgun hunters can see wounds disproportionate to the bullet diameter is because of the difference elasticities in various tissues. Humans don't have those same tissues? People are closer to gel blocks than to deer?

If you want to prove something, go ahead and display some actual proof.

WrongHanded said:

If you're a researcher, show me some research. Show me some detailed studies of various handgun wounds from cartridges ranging from .22lr to .44 Magnum, that brings you to the conclusion that handgun bullets only poke holes. Back up your claims with detailed scientific evidence.

You claim the reason handgun hunters can see wounds disproportionate to the bullet diameter is because of the difference elasticities in various tissues. Humans don't have those same tissues? People are closer to gel blocks than to deer?

If you want to prove something, go ahead and display some actual proof.

Click to expand...

I've provided plenty of evidence to backup my claims and to answer your questions. The science is there despite your denials.

Shawn Dodson said:

I've provided plenty of evidence to backup my claims and to answer your questions. The science is there despite your denials.

Click to expand...

Again Shawn, someone else's opinion from 20 years ago, is simply not evidence. You may wish it were, but it is not.

If I tell you the planet is getting warmer, and you say show me some evidence, a paragraph from Neil DeGrasse Tyson essentially saying "studies have been done and the planet is getting warmer" isn't going to cut it. If that kind of "evidence" worked, there'd be no debate on climate science.

You've given me nothing substantive to work with.

Kleanbore said:

What would you do with the data?

Click to expand...

I would figure out how to interpret it, and then do so myself.

WisBorn said:

I like Paul Harrell and his meat target test. If you want to compare cartridges he has probably done a video.
I carry a 380acp often. I believe that it will stop most attacks. Is it perfect? No. Stopping an attack is not the same as terminal damage. If you have been shot as an attacker you are probable going to retreat. This includes many four legged threats.
But to say that a 9mm is as effective as 357 watch Paul's test. Start at 10:40 to see the meat target demonstrations.

Click to expand...

In practicality the decision of 9mm vs 357 Magnum is made based on the platform, not on the cartridge. If 15 357 Magnums would fit in a Glock 19 I would be the first guy in line to buy one.