any data of one shot stops in real life, 9mm vs. .40 s&w?

[Walt Sherrill]

A point often overlooked is that handguns are SELDOM the weapon of choice in military conflicts.

Darned few people in uniform facing battle, and given the choice of a long-barreled, high capacity gun that shoots a high velocity round will choose to use a handgun instead -- unless their duties make the use of a long gun difficult. While Special Ops troops will typically carry both types of weapons, they all seem to consider the handgun as a LAST RESORT weapon.

And I agree with several of the comments above: The Marshall & Sanow studies have been discounted -- they appear to have cherry-picked their data, and also refused to allow peer review of their data. (Little things like NOT counting a single shot to the chest as a one-shot stop IF the shooter did a following shot that hit a non-critical area tilts the comparative value of one-shot stop rates -- particularly since man shooters were trained to fire twice [or more often] and then to asses the result.)

The Ellifrtiz study is much larger and based on data that can be reviewed. But none of these studies tells you about the context of the shootings -- whether the "bad guy" was experienced, whether he or she gave up quickly, got shots off in return, etc. Sometimes nothing works better than LUCK!! And you might be well-served to assume that true one-shot stops are often just lucky shots.

Here's some data extracted from the Ellifritz study -- and what I found most surprising is that the performance of the different calibers weren't all that different. What you have to examine, not shown in the chart below, is that number of events for each caliber. Some calibers do surprisingly well -- but only the .44 Magnum seems a standout, and even it is outperformed in some categories by smaller caliber rounds.

 

[WrongHanded]

i want to buy a .40 s&w glock but i keep hearing 9mm is just as good and police are going to 9mm. forget gel test. what the more effective in real life.(already have several 9mms)

I guess at this point I'll just answer the OP.

Having never shot anyone, I have no first hand knowledge of which caliber is more effective. The only information I have is based in gel tests (penetration and expansion), calculated number, diameter differences, and some interesting testing done by the likes of Paul Harrell.

I also saw a video of penetration testing done through sheets of aluminum that were evenly interspaced. This was with FMJ, in 9mm, .357 Sig, .40, and .45acp. The results were that .40 and .45acp both got through 2 sheets and were stopped by the third, the 9mm got the 3 sheets and was stopped by the fourth, and the .357 Sig got through 4 sheets and was stopped by the 5th. I'm sure you can find it if you look.

I'd say if you can shoot .40 well in the gun you want to buy, stepping up from 9mm gives you a theoretical advantage in damage per shot, unless you want to shoot through car doors.

 

[MrChicken]

i want to buy a .40 s&w glock but i keep hearing 9mm is just as good and police are going to 9mm. forget gel test. what the more effective in real life.(already have several 9mms)

Effectiveness; If it hits the right spot,both. If not, neither.
IMHO, you're better off picking the gun that you shoot the best and selecting the right ammo for the intended purpose.

 

[CopperFouling]

I've posted this elsewhere, but you should read the post from Frank Ettin on this thread. It is on the first page.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/are-hollow-points-really-deadlier-than-fmj.821313/

 

[CDW4ME]

Could an expanded 9mm bullet incapacitate as quickly as a larger bullet, sure.
Its it possible that increasing bullet diameter (wound) an additional 15-20% (40 S&W) could make a difference, I think so.

A generalization / observation based on 30+ deer kills (two dozen with bow) bigger holes generally result in shorter tracking.

 

[groundhog34]

Einstein who was smarter than any of us said E=MV2. The V is about the same in 9 and 40 but the 40 has more M. Question is can one be more accurate with a 9. Common sense tells me a bigger hole is more deadly than a smaller one, but I know nothing.

 

[GEM]

I don't think that equation is relevant here. That's the matter to energy conversion and stated as E=MC**2, where C = the speed of light. There are all kinds of mass, velocity, acceleration equations which folks will now post as if we were in physics class yet again.

Take your pick to see if any of these answer the question. They usually don't: https://physics.info/equations/

 

[pblanc]

Actually, kinetic energy of a moving body is ke=1/2 mv*2, where m is mass and v*2 is velocity squared. Momentum of a moving body is p=mv, where p is momentum. Both kinetic energy and momentum are vector quantities.

If there was a simple and easily calculated metric that correlated precisely with firearm projectile lethality, things would be a lot easier, but there isn't.

Between momentum and kinetic energy I tend to favor momentum as being more closely correlated with wounding effectiveness than kinetic energy, insofar as handgun cartridges are concerned. I think that ke overemphasizes the importance of velocity since it is proportional to the second power of velocity.

But sometimes with terminal ballistics a gain in one type of performance is accompanied by a loss in another. The sometimes paradoxical relationship between velocity and penetration for expanding JHP projectiles was mentioned. High velocity and high sectional density favor barrier penetration but high sectional density often comes at the expense of projectile diameter and a permanent crush channel of smaller diameter and volume.

 

[Sarge7402]

I agree with most all of your points. But I rather doubt that 9 mm Para would be all but obsolete but for NATO.

Another incongruity in the arguments that now support the return of many law enforcement agencies to 9 mm Para is that modern technology has allowed the 9 mm cartridge to "close the gap" on larger caliber cartridges. Well, what has improved since the 1980s? I don't think there have been enormous improvements made in powder or primer reliability. The 9 mm always tended to feed and ignite reliably. And for FMJ ammunition, 9 mm certainly penetrated very adequately, and sometimes too well. The obvious answer is more reliable and better JHP projectile expansion. But then, that supports the "bigger is better" premise.

I think that some of the reasons that many LEAs have returned to 9 mm are valid, including reduced costs, increased magazine capacity, potentially longer pistol service lifetimes, easier qualification (for some) officers, and perhaps faster follow-up shots (for some). But I don't think that enhanced terminal ballistics on a per hit basis is one of those reasons.

I can tell you that no one in the military believes the pistol is a primary weapon. Those few units that do switched to the 45 or never stopped using them. The military is restricted to using ball ammo and with ball ammo the 45 is a much better stopper. Secondly no one wants to put in the time or effort to teach the average troop (or LEO for that matter) how to handle weapons of a caliber greater than 9MM. Lastly the extended weapon life only holds if you shoot the standard non + anything type of load. Up the ante to a +p Or +P+ and your service pistol life - especially the aluminum framed ones drops drastically.

As for their work being fabricated, both Officers worked as Homicide Detectives and had access to a wealth of data on shootings.
ho
With regards to their 1 stop frontal shots, after shot one (and sometimes before as in the case of PCP) the body dumps adrenaline into the system and further shots unless they clip the wiring or hit the computer only work by dropping the shootee's blood pressure. And in a lot of cases that have been posted, perhaps only one or two shots actually hit the target, even at close range. Add that the shootee's tendancy to turn away from the shooter and one shot stops makes a lot of sense when evaluating weither a round will be effective or not

 

[Slamfire]

can tell you that no one in the military believes the pistol is a primary weapon. Those few units that do switched to the 45 or never stopped using them. The military is restricted to using ball ammo and with ball ammo the 45 is a much better stopper. Secondly no one wants to put in the time or effort to teach the average troop (or LEO for that matter) how to handle weapons of a caliber greater than 9MM. Lastly the extended weapon life only holds if you shoot the standard non + anything type of load. Up the ante to a +p Or +P+ and your service pistol life - especially the aluminum framed ones drops drastically.

Agree. A bud of mine worked the rebuild lines at Anniston Army Depot and got deployed to fix stuff at facilities and installations. Some Armored units, and I forget which type of armored unit, coming out of the vehicle with a long gun, to shoot at insurgents crawling up the vehicle, was inconvenient, so these guys would pop out with a pistol. They were running +P+ 9mm and their M92's were being beat to heck.

Now a 9mm pistol stopping power compared to the 20mm cannon on a Bradley, or the TOW missile, or the 308 machine gun? What is a little pistol going to do to an armored suicide truck?





Another bud, when he kicked down doors, he was using his M4 as primary, and he was wearing body armor. He was struck in the chest plate with an AK47 round, and the plate stopped the bullet. He said he was the only one who walked out of that room.What's a pistol going to do against body armor?

Pistols are carried primarily by Guards and Officers, people who are not expected to actually shoot anyone. The Army is looking at buying submachine guns, because they want something with a better hit probability, but not the size of a rifle.

The change over from 45 ACP to 9mm occurred in the 1970's, it was a political decision made by Congress. As for the Cops changing from 40 S&W to 9mm, I don't know why. Maybe the females on the force can't handle the recoil of a 40 S&W.

In terms of stopping power, that is an advertising term. You are poking holes in a living breathing creature. If you hit the central nervous system, then something on the animal will stop. If for example, you break the back bone and sever the spinal column, what is below the spinal column will stop functioning, the animal may loose its back legs, but it won't be dead. If you hit something else, then you are going to have to wait till the animal bleeds out. There is not a lot of difference between in size between a 0.355" bullet and a 0.400", what really matters is what you hit, what you poke a hole in and through.

I am far more impressed with the lethality of pole arms than that of pistols. I have seen a lot of pig, goat, carcasses cut in half with two handed swords and pole arms. These weapons deliver more momentum on target than any pistol made. I have seen the skulls crushed and the brains blow out of ballistic dummies, on TV, after being struck with a war hammer, or some long handled pole weapon.

 

[cheygriz]

If it weren't for the "wild west" yarns spun by a few skilled magazine writers. (skilled at writing, not guns) the .45 would have been pretty much gone 50 years ago.

The .40 was a spin-off from the failed 10MM experiemnt. It's as good as a 9 mm but certainly no better.

 

[tipoc]

"
New
i want to buy a .40 s&w glock but i keep hearing 9mm is just as good and police are going to 9mm. forget gel test. what the more effective in real life.(already have several 9mms)".

On the first page Pblanc pointed to some reasons the Ellifitz essay is flawed and the figures that make up the Sanow studies as well. I think pblanc's contribution is worth reading.

The requirements for arming an army of hundreds of thousands or many thousands of persons, or a large police force, are different than what an individual shooter needs to take a look at when it comes to our normal usage. It's also a different selection process that the military goes through for it's selection than you or I do or need to do. They have different needs.

9mm is not "just as good" it is a less powerful round than other commonly available service rounds.

The point of jhp pistol rounds is to expand and to limit penetration. This is why in the FBI's testing protocol they desire penetration and expansion of from 12"to 16" through barriers (auto glass, layers of cloth, sheet metal, etc.) for any handgun bullet to meet their standards regardless of caliber.

For penetration (reliable expansion as well) it requires both enough energy and momentum.

The op says he already has several guns in 9mm. So get a gun in 40 S&W and shoot it. See how you shoot that gun with various bullets and see how good you can get with it. If that Glock don't work well for you try the 40 S&W in a Smith, Sig or other gun. The 40 S&W, like the 45 acp or the 10mm is a very good round. It can be useful though only to the extent that the shooter can shoot it well.

tipoc

 

[AK103K]

It can be useful though only to the extent that the shooter can shoot it well

I think this is the key here, not the caliber. I think anyone who thinks they have a magic caliber in any gun, is just fooling themselves, but even more so with a handgun.

You can argue this is better than that, and your choice is better than mine, all the numbers say......but if you arent training to shoot until the opposition goes down, and continue to do so until they do, no matter what it is youre using, I think you may be in for a rude awakening. There are no magic bullets. Just the right number in the moment that get things done.

Since things are unlikely to be static (as most seem to practice for), and those tight little groups most seem to judge their skills by, arent likely to be happening, and many dont seem to even know the difference between a switch and a timer, and where to actually try and put the rounds to make things happen, assuming you even get that luxury, whats left but to keep shooting until the threat is down and stopped?

Everything seems so cut, dried and simple, especially when it comes to paper numbers, gel results, and war stories. If youre betting your life on a magic bullet, and not putting in the hard work and effort in honing your skills to get to where you can draw and hit on demand, without thought, and do it quickly and repetitively, until there is no more threat, magic bullets arent going to be of much help.

 

[CapnMac]

Last week a woman was shot (9) times and survived in Cincinnati, Ohio.

There's a youtube of a anesthesiologist giving a talk on firearms injuries who has data showing that 6/7 of handgun shooting victims survive compared to a 1 in three for rifle shots.

The doctor pointed out that, once the victim is in the Emergency Department, it's very hard to tell what caliber the weapons was, only the amount of damage to be corrected.

 

[WrongHanded]

If it weren't for the "wild west" yarns spun by a few skilled magazine writers. (skilled at writing, not guns) the .45 would have been pretty much gone 50 years ago.

The .40 was a spin-off from the failed 10MM experiemnt. It's as good as a 9 mm but certainly no better.

The 1911 is what ensures the .45 lives on. Not writers.

And of course the .40 isn't any better than the 9mm. Because the 9mm is better than everything it's better than; and just as good as everything it's not better than. And that mentality is exactly what makes the 9mm magical.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

9mm is not "just as good" it is a less powerful round than other commonly available service rounds.

It may be BETTER than "just as good" for some folks. If you can shoot 9mm well, and can't shoot .40 or .45 nearly as well -- even though you've spent a lot of time and money trying -- spraying and praying or waiting for your "target" to bleed out isn't a desirable alternative. That's because while the other party is bleeding out, he or she may still be shooting at or cutting on you.

The point of jhp pistol rounds is to expand and to limit penetration. This is why in the FBI's testing protocol they desire penetration and expansion of from 12"to 16" through barriers (auto glass, layers of cloth, sheet metal, etc.) for any handgun bullet to meet their standards regardless of caliber.

Don't think so... The point wasn't to limit penetration. I think you'll find that while they wanted AT LEAST 12"- 16" penetration, avoiding rounds that went farther (while still expanding) wasn't a real objective -- as darned few hollow point rounds went farther. On the other hand, many rounds in most LEO shooting missed the target and over-penetration then became a moot point. John Hall, head of the FBI's Firearms Training Unit during the tests, and who was involved in the study said:

“Considering that approximately 80% of the rounds fired by law enforcement officers engaged in violent encounters do not strike the intended targets, it was deemed somewhat unrealistic to attach too much significance to the potential risks of over-penetration on the part of those that do.”​

An interesting discussion of the FBI study and search can be found here: :https://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/2015/4/16/throwback-thursday-the-fbi-ammo-tests/

There are a number of ballistic results on line posted by various vendors showing how rounds expand through a variety (or combinations) of media. Depending on the loads used, some 9mm rounds can perform and expand through media like plywood and wallboard as well or better than .45 after having also passed through ballistic gel (or vice versa). https://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/w...0/03/Speer-Gold-Dot-Ammunition-Comparison.jpg

For penetration (reliable expansion as well) it requires both enough energy and momentum.

Momentum comes from energy and mass - you can't have momentum without the other two. If you change the mass of the bullet, things change dramatically. Smaller bullets can expand, and can also penetrate as deeply as heavier (larger caliber) if you speed them up.

Penetration and reliable expansion can happen with hot smaller-caliber rounds. It does mean that the rounds have to move faster. Some Gold Dot rounds (based on their published results) perform very similarly to some .40 and .45 rounds. That can be seen in the link above.

If you shoot .40 or .45 well, there's no reason to change -- or to switch to something like .44 magnum which might be even more effective. But, not everybody shoots .40 or .45 (or .44 magnum) well, and a few of us don't want to go there.

Why switch to something that doesn't do the job in your hands? When the SHTF you want to be able to put the rounds where they are most effective. Use the gun and the rounds that work best, for you and don't talk yourself into doing something that just doesn't make sense.

(I tend to carry 9mm, and my home defense gun is .45 GAP. I like them both and shoot them both well. I also have a .45 that I shoot well, and it may become my home defense gun, eventually, but it's too big for carry.)

 

[C0untZer0]

But sometimes with terminal ballistics a gain in one type of performance is accompanied by a loss in another. The sometimes paradoxical relationship between velocity and penetration for expanding JHP projectiles was mentioned.

The Federal 147gr HST is the perfect example of this. It is loaded in standard and +P pressures. The standard pressure loading expands slightly less and penetrates a little more, the +P expands slightly more but penetrates less.

 

[warnerwh]

I sure wish I could find some conclusive evidence. There needs to be all inclusive details to the study of the statistical one shot stop studies. Otherwise there are too many vagaries that can make a major effect on the outcome. Drugged up or determined attackers shot once or twice will be more difficult to stop than people who are done once they have been shot once or twice. It appears to me that some rounds may have some advantage overall but it isn't that much to compared shot placement. Any hit with a .380 solid to the CNS will work better than a .357 mag firing 125gr. hollow points that doesn't hit the CNS. Luck can play an important role imo.
A completely thorough and detailed study of actual shootings would get us closer. Some people have died who have been shot that shouldn't have and others have lived that shouldn't have because of their mental state. As far as I am concerned no study has been able to be relied upon anywhere near 100%. And sometimes people who are shot don't even know it until they see blood even with potentially fatal wound. We all have our own thoughts on which rounds will be best in a gun fight but being good with any round is what is actually best.

 

[stormyone]

http://www.handloads.com/misc/stoppingpower.asp?Caliber=17&Weight=All

The data on actual shootings is taken from Sanow and Marshal's efforts and represents their studies over many years. If you stick with standard pressure 9mm's then the 40 is about 10 per cent better. if you up it to +P+ ammo for the 9 then they are abut equal but the +P+ will batter an aluminum framed pistol sooner than not

That data is too old to rely on. Bullet technology has advanced greatly since Sanow and Marshal’s studies were reliable.

 

[tipoc]

"Why switch to something that doesn't do the job in your hands? When the SHTF you want to be able to put the rounds where they are most effective. Use the gun and the rounds that work best, for you and don't talk yourself into doing something that just doesn't make sense."

Walt criticized me for saying exactly the same thing earlier. Walt begins at the same place that I do. That a shooter should use the hand gun and caliber suited to the task and that the shooter handles best. He begins where I begin by advocating proficiency with the gun and the caliber. We both agree that it makes no sense to arm yourself with a gun or caliber or a load that you have not mastered for self defense, and best to carry something that the shooter can handle well. Where we differ is in that I advocate using the most powerful round that a shooter can handle well. Walt is not convinced of that. He does not have confidence that some shooters do quite well with a 40 S&W, a 10mm or a 45 acp.

A good many shooters talk themselves into confusion. The 9mm is good enough they say. But they do not believe it and you can tell by their immediate recommendations of a 9mm+P or +P+. The 9mm is enough, they say, but you need more power and sometimes need to stretch the limits of the caliber to get it.

Where they get confused is that what they want to say is this: that they shoot the 9mm better than the 40 or 45, that most guns in 9mm have a higher mag capacity and are lighter weight and/or a smaller handier size and that is the reason that they choose it for their tasks rather then a more powerful round and that placing shots accurately trumps power so they choose the most powerful round that they can shoot well. Instead they adhere to patent nonsense that power makes no difference something which they don't actually believe.

Confusion also begins by switching perspective, or not switching it. If a shooter stops a fight with a gun in 380acp then that gun and caliber are just as good in that situation as any other gun and round...the gun in the hands of a person stopped a fight. That's true as far as it goes, but it doesn't make the 357Mag equal to the 380 acp. Or "just as good as". One is more powerful than the other and more likely to stop a broader number of fights in the hands of someone who can shoot it well.

tipoc

 

[GEM]

I was watching an Alaska vet show. They were trying to sedate a coyote in a game reserve. The coyote was running around like crazy. It took about 4 tranquilizer darts from an air gun to bring it down. The doc says usually one works but when the animal is full of adrenaline as this one was (scared from its last experience), it negates the drug effects. We aren't talking drugs but the idea is the same. Anyway, when he went down, off went his testicles. I guess he had a point to be excited.

 

[cheygriz]

First, we should forget the myth of reliable one shot stops.

In a life or death situation, you begin firing and continue firing until the threat is neutralized.

Forget the one shot stop and the double tap and fire until you are safe from your attacker.

Remember the old story of the Montana sheriff. When the judge asked him why he shot "Black Bart" 5 times, he answered "That was all the bullets I had in my gun, yer honor."

 

[JTQ]

I don't think you're going to get realistic information on one shot stops when most pistol training teaches to shoot until the threat stops. Pretty much nobody trains to shoot once, see if the threat stops, then shoot again, etc. Due to the rate of fire most training is done, nearly every shooting can expect to have multiple shots, unless they miss, hit a person on the receiving end of a shooting. Nobody is going to know what number it was within the group that made the stop, the first, second, ...fifth, etc.

On the other hand, hunters are usually about one shot stops. They also shoot a whole bunch more stuff than LE/personal defense shootings do, and while their results are not studied "officially" like LE/personal defense shooting are, hunters generally know what works. I'm not talking about shooting deer with a .30-06, but what are the guys using to shoot animals when the gun/round is marginal for the task at hand, just like we're always told about handguns as personal defense tools (all handguns are poor man-stoppers, use your handgun to fight your way to your rifle, etc.).

I don't know what the correct answer is, but the guys shooting animals (even human sized animals) with handguns are using a different style of bullet than the guys that are shooting people, and I don't know why there is a difference.

 

[Jeb Stuart]

Stayed up late last night doing some calculations in order to answer the question.
Conclusion, first guy to hit target wins. ll. Targets completely missed had a 100% survival rate.

 

[tipoc]

This video, posted earlier, is a useful contribution to the discussion.



tipoc