OP
OP
An M.D. Argues the 40 S&W...
- Thread starter Garandimal
- Start date
- Status
Deanimator
Member
The cost of store bought practice ammunition is irrelevant to me since I reload for every caliber of handgun I own with the exception of .45 Colt, which I haven't even shot yet.
I'm a big .40 fan, it's a very good overall cartridge that has more capability potential in it than most people understand. That said, I don't know if I would agree that it's more pleasant to shoot than the .45 ACP, to me least to most recoil is 9mm, .45 ACP then .40 S&W, although the .40 isn't hard to shoot, it does kick a bit more than .40 I think just because usually it's on a smaller frame than a .45 is, typically.
This is one of the points I've brought up, the minimum 12" with 1.5X expansion has become the goal with no credence given to more penetration.
There are just too many variables to say X will work and Y won't, since many times X fails and Y succeeds.
Denial exists in both camps and "best compromise" is an oxymoron.
Patocazador
Member
I take everything the FBI says or does with a grain of salt. If my life is on the line, I'll take the .40, thank you.
The only advantage of the 9mm that I see is cheaper ammo. More rounds is not valid IMO. Better marksmanship is valid. In most police vs perps shootouts less than 10% of the shots hit the intended target. "Spray and pray" is what happens. Fewer aimed shots would yield a better result.
The only advantage of the 9mm that I see is cheaper ammo. More rounds is not valid IMO. Better marksmanship is valid. In most police vs perps shootouts less than 10% of the shots hit the intended target. "Spray and pray" is what happens. Fewer aimed shots would yield a better result.
What?
You're trying to tell me that a.45 ACP military ball load will bounce off a WWII helmet at 10 yards?
I find your statement unbelievable.
Trunk Monkey
member
Dr. Gary Roberts is THE leading authority on wound ballistics and terminal performance. If he says that there's not enough difference between the calibers to make a difference I'll take his word for it.
Your choice but he can do a million autopsies and still not have a clue how a single one reacted to being shot.
Personally I've moved down from .35 acp to .357 sig to .40 S&W and now 9mm (and I even recently purchased a .32 acp). My field guns have moved from .44 mag to 10mm to .357 Mag to .40 S&W and now 9mm.
Conceptually I like the .357 Sig the best. But it is not the ideal carry caliber.
There are two related factors for my decision and neither of them is shot placement or the effectiveness of the calibers.
I do agree that there is a floor with respect to effectiveness and all of the above calibers meet that except the .32 acp.
I draw my personal limit between 9mm and .380 acp, YMMV
The reasons I have moved down in caliber are pistol weight (fior a given amount of recoil) and size. The smaller the caliber, the smaller the pistol can be without becoming snappy or overly large.
A third, unrelated reason is that 9mm pistols, being more common have more desirable features such as RX optics or internal phosphate coatings.
And the reason I got the .32 acp is that I could carry it at those times where I would otherwise not be carrying:
Conceptually I like the .357 Sig the best. But it is not the ideal carry caliber.
There are two related factors for my decision and neither of them is shot placement or the effectiveness of the calibers.
I do agree that there is a floor with respect to effectiveness and all of the above calibers meet that except the .32 acp.
I draw my personal limit between 9mm and .380 acp, YMMV
The reasons I have moved down in caliber are pistol weight (fior a given amount of recoil) and size. The smaller the caliber, the smaller the pistol can be without becoming snappy or overly large.
A third, unrelated reason is that 9mm pistols, being more common have more desirable features such as RX optics or internal phosphate coatings.
And the reason I got the .32 acp is that I could carry it at those times where I would otherwise not be carrying:
Trunk Monkey
member
1. Doc Roberts is a dentist
2. If he's doing an autopsy at all I would think it's self evident how they reacted to being shot, they died.
3. If I reference Gary Roberts DDS. knowledgeable gun owners know exactly who I'm talking about? Mavracer? Not so much.
4. I thought I had you on ignore.
What I have seen quite a few times, were references to tests said to have been conducted by the US Army in 1945 in which the .45 ACP FMJ when shot from a pistol, failed to penetrate a GI steel helmet at 35 yards whereas a 9 mm Parabellum FMJ penetrated the same at 125 yards. I have never seen any further description of these tests or who conducted them.
Here is one such reference to the alleged test:
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/the-truth-about-big-bore-bullets/
Well then without devolving into another of your ad hominem attacks and since I seem to have my "they're all the same" quacks mixed up maybe you can actually answer the question I've asked every other proponent.
How do you accurately measure the temporary and permanent wound channels in soft tissue?
Trunk Monkey
member
Haven't the slightest but I'm not the foremost expert on one ballistics in the world. Why don't you head over to pistolform.com and ask Dr. Roberts yourself?
If one values putting the most rounds on target in the least possible time, they are likely prefer 9mm.
Willing to sacrifice a couple rounds & slight bit of speed in exchange for bigger bullets? 40.
Value higher KE despite that it allegedly "doesn't matter" willing to give up couple rounds and slight bit of speed in follow up shots? 357 Sig
16 rounds 9mm
14 rounds 40 S&W
14 rounds 357 Sig
Assuming one shot them with equal accuracy, which would be chosen for carry?
My chrono averages, 357 Sig delivers over 500# KE (allegedly doesn't matter) from a 4'' barrel.
Glock 19: Federal HST 147 gr +P @ 1,044 fps / 356# KE
Glock 23: Federal HST 180 gr. @ 1,003 fps / 402# KE
Glock 32: Federal HST 125 gr. @ 1,358 fps / 512# KE
Folks, knock off the bickering or I'll put the boot in.
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
That... and some clean underwear.
GR
OP
OP
Garandimal
member
The FBI Ammo Tests
“Now,” Hall said,“we must preach the gospel of reality.”
Urey Patrick gets the award for best quote,
“Based on the results of our tests, I don't care what you use as long as it starts with a '4.'”
“Now,” Hall said,“we must preach the gospel of reality.”
Urey Patrick gets the award for best quote,
“Based on the results of our tests, I don't care what you use as long as it starts with a '4.'”
GR
That... and some clean underwear.
It would be very hard put .22 slug half way between eye socket and ear on Ole' Grizz from up close.
That is almost like engaging seasoned guerilla fighter in CQB.
TTv2
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 4,987
It's funny how those ballistics for the .40 are almost exactly the same as what a .41 Special or .44 Special does and there are people who swear by those big bore revolver calibers as the ideal "manstopper" load, but when it comes to semi auto's they have the .40 doing exactly that and I'm sure a lot of those people on the .41/.44 Spl bandwagon suddenly become hostile to .40.
As for the choice of what to carry, my belief is the first shot is the most important shot because there's no guarantee you'll get a second one off in time to make a difference.
Agreed.
Ok, now we've gone from 10 yards to 35 yards and still don't have any actual proof. Just related stories. There's also a huge difference between "bounce off" and "failed to penetrate". If the .45 ACP folded up the helmet to the point where the sides were touching that would still result in the wearer of the helmet being removed from the fight.
The short answer is "you can't".
Soft tissue covers quite a bit of ground. Skin, fat, fascia, tendon, muscle, lung, nerves, vessels, brain, liver, spleen, myocardium, and bowel are all soft tissues but they have petty different properties in tensile strength, density, and how they react to penetrating trauma. Consider entry and exit wounds in skin. Even when they result from a GSW of the same caliber, they can vary in size and configuration greatly from slit like, to considerably larger than the projectile diameter. Tissues like liver, spleen, and brain parenchyma have little to no connective tissue maintaining integrity. They are basically held together by dura or capsules to a considerable degree. GSWs in these tissues can cause extensive irregular tissue fragmentation.
Considering only muscle parenchyma (not including the investing fascia), since this is what many think off when they hear "soft tissue" and is what 10% calibrated ballistic gelatin is said to simulate, you cannot measure temporary cavity by any means. The tissue is elastic (unlike gelatin) and may undergo significant displacement with passage of a projectile, but then will recoil back into place. Some high velocity rifle projectiles can cause devitalization of some of the muscle tissue that undergoes rapid stretch, but this often does not happen, and when it does it is irregular and sometimes not apparent at the time of initial wound exploration. At any rate, there is no way to measure this type of effect with any precision.
Projectiles do create permanent crush channels through muscle tissue, but these are not like precise cylindrical channels bored through metal plate with a carbide bit. The channels are irregular and may be distorted by hematomas. You can't apply a caliper and measure their diameter.
I won't argue that. I have never seen any description of how such a test, assuming it happened, was conducted. No details as to how many shots were fired, whether the angle at which the projectile struck the helmet was controlled for or not,etc. And I'm not entirely sure what relevance the ability to penetrate a steel helmet at ranges greater than 25 yards with a sidearm bears. But you will find many references to that particular test cited around the internet.
If anyone has any further information regarding this test, I for one would be interested in reading about it.
- Status
