An M.D. Argues the 40 S&W...

Status
Not open for further replies.
The short answer is "you can't".
Yes, I'm well aware of that.

I just love the mental gymnastics that these 9mm is the "best compromise" go thru.
They have this HWFE 12" and ER Doctors can't tell the difference thing down to a science.
You point out HWFE says bigger is better and 18" is preferred, they point to the ER Dr.
You say well if the ER Dr can't tell anything then why not a 32 or 380 and they point to HWFE.
And when you point out this lunacy then comes the appeal to authority fallacy and ad hominem attacks.
 
Yes, I'm well aware of that.

I just love the mental gymnastics that these 9mm is the "best compromise" go thru.
They have this HWFE 12" and ER Doctors can't tell the difference thing down to a science.
You point out HWFE says bigger is better and 18" is preferred, they point to the ER Dr.
You say well if the ER Dr can't tell anything then why not a 32 or 380 and they point to HWFE.
And when you point out this lunacy then comes the appeal to authority fallacy and ad hominem attacks.

I imagine doctors are more focused on repairing damage than discerning & documenting wound differences; I don't imagine this happens:
"Hey nurse, bring me a dial caliper this wound looks a little bigger than normal; I knew it !!! .95 - State Patrol carries 45 HST.
Usually the wounds run about .60 from the city PD shootings and their 9mm Gold Dots
Last week was a surprise, it was between what I usually see, dial caliper read .70 - turns out county sheriff was carrying a 40.
If you don't mind document the .95 from the 45 HST on the chart, I like to be through, not make anecdotal generalizations."


Even if there were documented differences, guess what ... spoiler... it doesn't matter ... amiright
Because "small" differences in wounding are not as important as putting as many rounds on target in the least time, says popular consensus. ;)
 
Owning all three, i prefer 9mm. I shoot alot so i carry the 9mm. I have 9mm barrels for my 40 glocks but always never shoot 40 out of them.
 
Between a couple combat tours as an infantryman and 12+ years as a street cop in a major metro city, Ive seen hundreds of gunshot wounds. Ive seen several hundred people shot. Ive treated dozens of gunshot wounds. Ive shot a few people. Some of my observations.

Shot placement and penetration matter. A good hit is a good hit and a bad hit is a bad hit. If you want to stop a determined or drugged up attacker you need to cause massive damage to important organs and/or major structures as fast as possible. Barely nicking a major organ or artery might kill a guy, but it doesn't really matter if he bleeds to death 15 minutes after he's stabbed you to death. Also be ready for the bad guy to have little to no reaction to being shot, even fatally. It happens and it will surprise you. Pick a cartridge that will reliable penetrate well and expand. The FBI testing protocol has shown to mirror real world results. Bullets that pass tend to perform well in real life shootings. Bullets that dont pass tend to have far more shortcomings in real life shootings.

My department switched to 9mm a few years ago. Before that it issued .40 and 9mm or .45 were optional via private purchase. New guys are getting 9mm but they havent replaced any guns already fielded. We have a good mix of 9mm, 40, and 45s on the street. Outside of freak incidents all have performed the same... Good hits are good hits, bad hits are bad hits. The few freak incidents have actually all come from 45s where guys shot with it should have been DRT, but they survived. It has nothing to do with the 45, just sometimes people can be amazingly resilient.

I saw a terrorist get shot by a sniper, 175 grain Sierra Match King, the the side of the lower chest. Ripped the front of his torso wide open right at the bottom of the rib cage. Destroyed both lungs, the liver, and the major blood vessels below the heart. That dude ran like 150 meters, with his intestines starting to come out, before he fell over and died. Had one guy get shot in the lower back by a 240C from an Abrams. 7.62 Nato ball ammo hit him in the lower right back and exited his left nipple. He was crouched running away when he was shot. We found that guy a good 30 minutes after the firefight and he was still alive when he got air evac'd.

I was issued a Glock 22 .40 and switched to a Glock 21 .45 for less recoil and faster follow up. I switched to a 9mm for the same reason. I won top shooter in my Academy class with an overall score of 99.28 percent, so I can shoot a 40 well. I just shoot a 9mm better and when having to use a little pop gun in a firefight ill take better accuracy during rapid fire and more ammo. Ive never said at the end of a gunfight "I wish I brought less ammo".
 
I do not think round effectiveness has anything to do with the switch back to 9m.m. It comes down to recoil and qualification scores. The scores have been dropping due to the widespread adoption of the .40 S&W round. The reason is the recoil. My agency has "downloaded" twice on the .40 S&W.

We started with a real "MAN STOPPER". a 155 grain jhp at @ 1,200 fps. It was a very strong load that also wore out our issue guns in about 10 years. We switched guns, then switched ammo to a 135 grain jhp, at a lower velocity and then went to the 180 grain at 1,010 fps.
Now we are going to the 9m.m.
The reasons were not for power, but qualification scores. They are just lower when using .40 S&W. This can lead to all sorts of problems, like not being able to hire diverse personal, as well as potential law suits when your officers miss a target or even hit a target and the bullet passes through the target.

Anybody remember the lawsuit against the FBI over the requirement to qualify with a 6 shot revolver, while field agents were allowed to carry smaller, 5 shot revolvers?

As I as getting older, I am very happy we are going back to the 9m.m. as I prefer it to the .40 S&W. A little less recoil is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned.

Jim
 
I have never had an issue with the .40 being too snappy, but it does have a bit more bark. I find the 9mm just fine for my needs. It's cheap enough I can just buy a box or three when the mood strikes me to set back for a rainy day. .40 is easy to find during an ammo drought, but I don't really miss having one. I do appreciate that it could be more of a rip snorter than typically was, and it made good sense as compromise city/country carry gun without going to 10mm. That said, where I go, a 9mm loaded hot will do just fine.
 
I decided to try the .40 about 10 years ago after a life time of .45 and half of that with a 9. When I first noticed the .40 stinging recoil , in my Sig 239, I smiled as I am a firm believer in Newtonian Physics in the world around me. :) Now I have 3 of the .40s : a Sig 239, a CZ P-06 , and my new Walther M1 PPS . I also have a couple thousand rounds ready to go of 180 flatpoint ball ammo. I use Federal 180 HST as a carry load. I can hit a C target to 100 yards most of the time from a rest and 9" targets 90% at 25 yards with all of them , but the P-06 is much more accurate.
 
When all this business started about 40 S&W I took the OEM .357 SIG barrel out of my G23.4. The original 40 S&W barrel was reinstalled. I handload so the price of 9mm is irrelevant. I'd say give time, time. We will see how this drama plays out. None of these things are toys.
 
I have 9mm and 40 cal. I shoot the 9mm more ..it's cheaper to shoot.
I save the 40 cals for home defense as a feel that they are better in that role, and I could never get any money for them in trade in value, so I just keep them. It's fun to shoot them every once in awhile.
 
When I went to a local gun shop, last week, I noticed they had some police trade in SIG'S and GLOCK'S. The 9m.m. pistols were about $50.00 more than the same model of .40 S&W. I noticed the same on the internet, at several of the distributors. I think the public is showing their decision with their money and will pay more for a 9m.m. The .40 calibers appear to be slower sales at this point.

I know, I would prefer a 9m.m., if I had a choice.

Jim
 
I do not think round effectiveness has anything to do with the switch back to 9m.m. It comes down to recoil and qualification scores. The scores have been dropping due to the widespread adoption of the .40 S&W round. The reason is the recoil. My agency has "downloaded" twice on the .40 S&W....

Why is the solution so frequently to shrink the ammo instead of increasing the mass of the gun? I understand why many people don't do well with a high-velocity recoil and a lot of muzzle-flip. But why is the practice of down-loading the ammunition to what might be marginal performance levels so widespread while increasing the gun mass to more than 30 ounces or the barrel length (and sight radius) to more than 4 inches is almost unheard of in modern practice?
 
A 115 gr 9x19mm with 6 grains of powder at 1203fps in a 22 ounce Glock 17 results in:
Recoil Impulse: .75 lbs.sec
Recoil Velocity: 17.49 fps
Recoil Energy: 6.53 ft.lbf

Loading that same weight firearm with a 40 S&W will certainly result in more recoil velocity and for some people, probably lower qualification scores. Switch them to a CZ Tactical Sport in 40 S&W and I can't see how their scores wouldn't improve, quite possibly very dramatically:

155 gr. .40 S&W 9.3 grains of powder at 1283 fps
Impulse: 1.09 lbs.sec
Velocity: 11.68 fps
Energy: 6.36 ft.lbf

They will experience dramatically less recoil with the 40 S&W.

Even with a CZ 75 B, they will feel slightly less recoil than the Glock 17.

So basically, the reason people are switching to 9mm is that they're saying that some of those 40 caliber guns weigh too much and they have trouble keeping their pants up.
 
A 115 gr 9x19mm with 6 grains of powder at 1203fps in a 22 ounce Glock 17 results in:
Recoil Impulse: .75 lbs.sec
Recoil Velocity: 17.49 fps
Recoil Energy: 6.53 ft.lbf

Loading that same weight firearm with a 40 S&W will certainly result in more recoil velocity and for some people, probably lower qualification scores. Switch them to a CZ Tactical Sport in 40 S&W and I can't see how their scores wouldn't improve, quite possibly very dramatically:

155 gr. .40 S&W 9.3 grains of powder at 1283 fps
Impulse: 1.09 lbs.sec
Velocity: 11.68 fps
Energy: 6.36 ft.lbf

They will experience dramatically less recoil with the 40 S&W.

Even with a CZ 75 B, they will feel slightly less recoil than the Glock 17.

So basically, the reason people are switching to 9mm is that they're saying that some of those 40 caliber guns weigh too much and they have trouble keeping their pants up.
One thing a lot of folks miss is quite a few companies add a little weight to the slide on 40 s&w models vs their 9mm counterparts.
I know FN FNS and Ruger SR are easily recognized external cuts.
 
A 115 gr 9x19mm with 6 grains of powder at 1203fps in a 22 ounce Glock 17 results in:
Recoil Impulse: .75 lbs.sec
Recoil Velocity: 17.49 fps
Recoil Energy: 6.53 ft.lbf

Loading that same weight firearm with a 40 S&W will certainly result in more recoil velocity and for some people, probably lower qualification scores. Switch them to a CZ Tactical Sport in 40 S&W and I can't see how their scores wouldn't improve, quite possibly very dramatically:

155 gr. .40 S&W 9.3 grains of powder at 1283 fps
Impulse: 1.09 lbs.sec
Velocity: 11.68 fps
Energy: 6.36 ft.lbf

They will experience dramatically less recoil with the 40 S&W.

Even with a CZ 75 B, they will feel slightly less recoil than the Glock 17.

So basically, the reason people are switching to 9mm is that they're saying that some of those 40 caliber guns weigh too much and they have trouble keeping their pants up.

Good post. It is striking that the .40 and polymer guns both came to widespread adoption at about the same time... those two things go together about like toothpaste and orange juice. There's nothing especially "snappy" about a .40 until you stick it in a lightweight plastic gun. But since that's the type of gun most people have shot .40 from, they think that .40 has some extraordinary level of recoil. It recoils more than 9mm because it's throwing a materially heavier projectile at about the same speed. Run it out of a sensibly-massive gun, and it can be shot very, very rapidly and accurately... just go watch any USPSA Limited-division shooters.
 
It seems as though modern tacticool training emphasizes one's ability to pump a perp full of lead as quickly as possible. Honestly, for the average person, rapid-fire mag dumps tend to spread the groups a bit regardless of caliber, and if 9mm requires more hits to take down a perp, than perhaps lower recoil and higher capacity are advantageous. Have mag dumps really been necessary in the majority of defensive shootings? I haven't uncovered any data that suggests it; rather, the old statistic of 3 shots on average seems to hold true, and the accuracy of the first shot would seem to be the most critical. If your aim is true, that first shot whether from a 9mm or 40 or 45 is going to go pretty much the same place. We're just aiming for center mass after all. And is it better to keyhole 3 shots in a rabid meth head, or spread the damage a little? What really matters? At defensive distances, is the recoil of a 40 or 45 that much greater that you're going to miss? If so, perhaps it would be more beneficial to brush up on fundamentals.

Anyway, in my mind, how quickly you can assess the situation and decide upon a course of action before you draw is infinitely more important than one's choice of caliber. I would wager that in the real world, caliber means far less than it does on an Internet forum.
 
Between a couple combat tours as an infantryman and 12+ years as a street cop in a major metro city, Ive seen hundreds of gunshot wounds. Ive seen several hundred people shot. Ive treated dozens of gunshot wounds. Ive shot a few people. Some of my observations.

Shot placement and penetration matter. A good hit is a good hit and a bad hit is a bad hit. If you want to stop a determined or drugged up attacker you need to cause massive damage to important organs and/or major structures as fast as possible. Barely nicking a major organ or artery might kill a guy, but it doesn't really matter if he bleeds to death 15 minutes after he's stabbed you to death. Also be ready for the bad guy to have little to no reaction to being shot, even fatally. It happens and it will surprise you. Pick a cartridge that will reliable penetrate well and expand. The FBI testing protocol has shown to mirror real world results. Bullets that pass tend to perform well in real life shootings. Bullets that dont pass tend to have far more shortcomings in real life shootings.

My department switched to 9mm a few years ago. Before that it issued .40 and 9mm or .45 were optional via private purchase. New guys are getting 9mm but they havent replaced any guns already fielded. We have a good mix of 9mm, 40, and 45s on the street. Outside of freak incidents all have performed the same... Good hits are good hits, bad hits are bad hits. The few freak incidents have actually all come from 45s where guys shot with it should have been DRT, but they survived. It has nothing to do with the 45, just sometimes people can be amazingly resilient.

I saw a terrorist get shot by a sniper, 175 grain Sierra Match King, the the side of the lower chest. Ripped the front of his torso wide open right at the bottom of the rib cage. Destroyed both lungs, the liver, and the major blood vessels below the heart. That dude ran like 150 meters, with his intestines starting to come out, before he fell over and died. Had one guy get shot in the lower back by a 240C from an Abrams. 7.62 Nato ball ammo hit him in the lower right back and exited his left nipple. He was crouched running away when he was shot. We found that guy a good 30 minutes after the firefight and he was still alive when he got air evac'd.

I was issued a Glock 22 .40 and switched to a Glock 21 .45 for less recoil and faster follow up. I switched to a 9mm for the same reason. I won top shooter in my Academy class with an overall score of 99.28 percent, so I can shoot a 40 well. I just shoot a 9mm better and when having to use a little pop gun in a firefight ill take better accuracy during rapid fire and more ammo. Ive never said at the end of a gunfight "I wish I brought less ammo".


This is one of the very best posts that I've ever read. I will be 54 years old next month. I live in a virtually no-crime small town and feel safe sleeping with my two large dogs and my 357 magnum within reach. I lived in some bad places when I was younger. If things got a tiny bit rougher, one of my 12-gauge shotguns would be in the mix. If things got rougher than that, I would sell my house and move. Basically, I expect my first one or two or three shots to settle the issue. If they don't, I am probably a dead man. I don't think that 9mm or 40caliber or 45acp make much of a difference. You either hit the BG in a place that will stop them, or you don't. It's not going to be completely predictable. Some BG's will fall down and quit from a 22lr in the arm, some will take a HP rifle round in the chest and keep on coming. If you can quickly and consistently hit a moving paper plate at seven yards with your service-caliber handgun of choice, you are pretty much doing all you can do with a handgun. After that the results are pretty much out of your control. If that isn't good enough for you, you need and shotgun or a HP rifle. I am a good shooter with a service-caliber handgun, but if I am seriously expecting trouble, I will bet on my pump-action 12 gauge seven days of the week and twice on Sunday. I have never shot anything with a 12-gauge shotgun that lived to tell the tale.
 
Once again.

9v40v45v10v357.......

YES. Is the answer.

I know the caliber wars are like a horse that's been beaten to death many times over, and that after more than a hundred years, it's not about to end. I understand the prevailing sentiment of present times is that any of the abovementioned popular chamberings are suitably effective. Being a veteran of an effort to make shooting full-power .357 Magnum from an 11 ounce gun practical, I would reiterate my previously stated point that if one accepts 9x19 as "just as effective as" 40 or 45 and so on, that one can't conclude that they're "all the same" without giving some consideration to the immutable physics involved. A 9x19 from a 22 ounce Glock might be "just the same" as a 10mm from a 22 ounce Glock, but they don't feel the same. It would seem that great masses of people are realizing this, and notably preferring the feel of the 9x19. I mean, why not? If they're all "the same" pick the one the "feels the best." But if we add more mass to the guns that are producing greater recoil impulse, then they actually feel the same too.

So if you used sufficiently massive guns so that various cartridges actually felt the same, then which one would you choose? You would choose the gun with the weight that you preferred, or go back to the ballistics for a distinction that may or may not be there.

So what is the preferred weight irrespective of felt recoil? I say irrespective of recoil because we can load the cartridge up or down for heavier or lighter guns so that recoil feels the same. Now here is where the great majority of people are choosing what feels best in their pants. But what about handling and balance? Lighter guns handle faster, but they have less inertia to maintain sight alignment (I'm talking prior to the shot).

Now if there are some advantages to heavier guns, one could certainly have a heavier gun in 9mm. But at some point the recoil is manageable and further reduction has diminishing returns. I don't think many people believe that there are no advantages whatsoever to greater bullet energy or momentum, but that people are increasingly convinced the advantages aren't worth it. But they are only coming to that conclusion in an evaluation exclusively in lightweight guns.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Maybe I am wrong but I don't really notice much difference in recoil between .40 & 9mm. Now of course recoil is subjective. I am pretty sure it is perceived differently by different people but there isn't a noticeable difference for me. I have never owned a sub compact chambered for .40 simply because I believe it would be unpleasant. I prefer to carry compact (think Glock 19 sized) or full sized guns. I do have a 9mm subcompact for when nothing larger is possible but I much prefer a larger pistol. I am pretty sure though that a persons preference can be affected by a host of different things (thinking physical size, level of strength, hand size, etc.). The biggest down side I see to .40 is that it is a lot more expensive than 9mm now. A few years ago they were both priced about the same. One day my attitude might change but for now I'm sticking with 40.
 
  • Like
Reactions: vba
Good post. It is striking that the .40 and polymer guns both came to widespread adoption at about the same time... those two things go together about like toothpaste and orange juice. There's nothing especially "snappy" about a .40 until you stick it in a lightweight plastic gun. But since that's the type of gun most people have shot .40 from, they think that .40 has some extraordinary level of recoil. It recoils more than 9mm because it's throwing a materially heavier projectile at about the same speed. Run it out of a sensibly-massive gun, and it can be shot very, very rapidly and accurately... just go watch any USPSA Limited-division shooters.
This is a good point. How many have shot .40 in a steel framed pistol? How does the recoil feel in comparison to a polymer .40 and polymer 9?
 
Continuing the point I was making before, "...here is where the great majority of people are choosing what feels best in their pants. But what about handling and balance? Lighter guns handle faster, but they have less inertia to maintain sight alignment (I'm talking prior to the shot)." Another thing to consider which I mentioned but didn't describe is the gun's balance. In a lightweight gun like the Glock 19X, a larger portion of the mass is made up of ammo compared to a steel-framed gun. Glock specifies an unloaded weight of 24.83 oz (with magazine), and a loaded weight 31.39 oz. So over the course of firing, the balance changes so that about 6.5 ounces comes off the bottom, rear grip area. So the weight and balance of the gun are changed by almost 21%. Now compare this to a CZ-75 in 40 caliber. We already saw how the recoil velocity of this steel-framed gun is a little less than the Glock despite the greater energy of the cartridge. But over the course of firing, the balance is only going to change by about 11%. Of course, a significant amount of this is the difference in capacity. If we loaded both guns with 10 rounds, then the difference would be smaller but the heavier gun would still have a little less change in its balance since the gun's permanent weight is a greater portion of it's overall loaded weight even accounting for the greater mass of the 40's heavier bullets. A massive revolver is better still in this respect since the relatively few rounds of ammo are a much smaller portion of the gun's weight and they are located closer to the center of mass. The revolver also does not shed the mass of the brass cases during the course of firing.
 
I find the .40 to be much snappier than 45 in my limited experience. Friend has a glock 22 and another has a Springfield XD mod2 subcompact 45 and I have a 1911.
 
What's this stinging recoil and muzzle flip? I thought one was to practice with any handgun until proficient. If can't handle any firearm better not buy it. There is a world of difference between "don't like" and "no good". If the FBI adopted 8mm Nambu how many folks would line up to buy this caliber? I like them all. Do you remember all the justifications for the 40 S&W in the day?
 
This is a good point. How many have shot .40 in a steel framed pistol? How does the recoil feel in comparison to a polymer .40 and polymer 9?

I have shot a LOT of 40 and .40-in-a-10mm-case rounds from heavy steel pistols. There is recoil, but it is hardly abusive or difficult to manage. It’s more controllable (in terms of sight return) than 9mm from a plastic compact. And far more enjoyable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top