What happened to 40 caliber?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I don't want to join the "40 vs 9mm" argument. The OP is What happened to the 40 caliber? Well, the 40 caliber is just not as popular as the 9mm. 9mm brass is everywhere. 9mm bullets are easy to find. You can buy 9mm ammo less without putting a hole in your pocket. I bought a 9mm for two reasons: First, I collected so much brass. I saved a lot of range brass and most have the same headstamp. Second, the ammo is going to be around for a long time.
 
WrongHanded said:
Yeah, so did anyone actually bother to recreate any of those studies he sighted, and disprove them? I'm guessing no, because if they did there'd been some evidence that it was as you say *junk science". Seem like not much real science is actually coming from the Facklerites, just nay saying and deflection. That's about all I'm hearing from you.
Click to expand...
Dr. J.S. Williams wrote (July 2009):
"DocGKR (Dr. Gary K. Roberts) and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits. Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

"When I first ventured into the study of terminal ballistics over a decade ago I had already been practicing as a trauma physician for quite some time... but that didn't make me a ballistician. I realized very quickly that I had a LOT of reading to do before I would be in any kind of position to offer opinions on wound ballistics in any forum: in court, at trauma grand rounds, or on internet bulletin boards. I would like to encourage you to try to get grounded in the necessary disciplines before you go chasing after someone like Dr. Courtney, who by all appearances is a brilliant--if eccentric and often misguided--man. You won't be able to find the errors in his papers/writings unless you've got enough pertinent background knowledge, so I'd suggest you dust off your library card and get to work.

"Being an engineer, I'd think that a good place to start would be Duncan MacPherson's Terminal Ballistics text. I don't have a copy but have read it. I believe it's available through Calibre Press. After you've read MacPherson, I'd recommend that you go to a medical school or university library and get a copy of every paper written by Dr. Martin Fackler, and read them in chronological order. Finally, if you can get your hands on copies of the IWBA Journal, read as much of this short-lived but excellent journal as you can. A broad understanding of human anatomy and physiology would be useful as well, of course. There's no single source I could recommend for that.

"It might not be apparent to you or others who have lately become interested in terminal ballistics/effects, but the "stickies" at the front end of this forum written by Dr. Roberts are the result of years and years of research and learned discourse underlying a huge volume of solid research. Many of us know him personally and professionally and run in the same circles, so we can vouch for his authenticity. As such, you can pretty much take Doc's "stickies" at face value. They are a tremendous resource for all of us.​

Whereas, Dr. Roberts wrote (July 2009):
"Take the time to read the referenced articles--they do not support the claims of this paper. For that matter, the clinical evidence and outcomes of thousands of patients treated for GSW's and hits to body armor in recent combat clearly highlight the irrelevance of this paper, as do the numerous patients treated for domestic GSW's in this Nation.​

I recommend that everyone interested in this subject and that has any doubt, take the time to read the papers referenced by the Courtney's and judge for yourself--are these theories and experimental findings clinically relevant, do they match what is seen in actual GSW's, will they alter outcomes ​
 
Smaug said:
Let me ask you guys something. You guys who say "9 mm is not significantly different." If you were this cop, wouldn't you have wished for something a bit more stout in that moment? and like the other member said, imagine he had a machete instead of a rotten branch.

I'd have been wishing for a 45 ACP with a 185 gr. Hydra-Shok. One of the petals of the expanding bullet might've clipped his spine sooner. (assuming I couldn't have a 12 ga. w/buck shot)

I would like to think I'd have started trying head shots after the first couple shots into the chest.

I will say that we need tighter physical fitness requirements for cops. That perp would've killed that cop if he just ran on foot and made him give chase. Would've been a chest-grabber for sure. No risk of being shot, either.
Click to expand...
In the video linked below, the high-energy rifle cartridges had zero immediate effect in instantly incapacitating the pigs. The pigs were able to act with volition after being hit, as would a determined human aggressor. The bullets created more trauma than any handgun bullet. Blood loss take time to have an effect - a dozen or more seconds. There is no magic bullet. There is no undiscovered magical physiological reaction that changes the outcome of any given gunshot wound.

 
Shawn Dodson said:
Dr. J.S. Williams wrote (July 2009):
"DocGKR (Dr. Gary K. Roberts) and I--as well as many other learned persons with experience in scientific research--have independently spent hours and hours looking up Courtney's citations to be sure we're not missing something important, and we have independently come to the conclusion that his work is junk science at best. Feel free to keep researching and arguing with Courtney, if you like, but in the end you may feel you've wasted a lot of time and energy that could have been used more productively in other pursuits. Arguing with Courtney is like trying to teach a pig to sing..."

"When I first ventured into the study of terminal ballistics over a decade ago I had already been practicing as a trauma physician for quite some time... but that didn't make me a ballistician. I realized very quickly that I had a LOT of reading to do before I would be in any kind of position to offer opinions on wound ballistics in any forum: in court, at trauma grand rounds, or on internet bulletin boards. I would like to encourage you to try to get grounded in the necessary disciplines before you go chasing after someone like Dr. Courtney, who by all appearances is a brilliant--if eccentric and often misguided--man. You won't be able to find the errors in his papers/writings unless you've got enough pertinent background knowledge, so I'd suggest you dust off your library card and get to work.

"Being an engineer, I'd think that a good place to start would be Duncan MacPherson's Terminal Ballistics text. I don't have a copy but have read it. I believe it's available through Calibre Press. After you've read MacPherson, I'd recommend that you go to a medical school or university library and get a copy of every paper written by Dr. Martin Fackler, and read them in chronological order. Finally, if you can get your hands on copies of the IWBA Journal, read as much of this short-lived but excellent journal as you can. A broad understanding of human anatomy and physiology would be useful as well, of course. There's no single source I could recommend for that.

"It might not be apparent to you or others who have lately become interested in terminal ballistics/effects, but the "stickies" at the front end of this forum written by Dr. Roberts are the result of years and years of research and learned discourse underlying a huge volume of solid research. Many of us know him personally and professionally and run in the same circles, so we can vouch for his authenticity. As such, you can pretty much take Doc's "stickies" at face value. They are a tremendous resource for all of us.​

Whereas, Dr. Roberts wrote (July 2009):
"Take the time to read the referenced articles--they do not support the claims of this paper. For that matter, the clinical evidence and outcomes of thousands of patients treated for GSW's and hits to body armor in recent combat clearly highlight the irrelevance of this paper, as do the numerous patients treated for domestic GSW's in this Nation.​

I recommend that everyone interested in this subject and that has any doubt, take the time to read the papers referenced by the Courtney's and judge for yourself--are these theories and experimental findings clinically relevant, do they match what is seen in actual GSW's, will they alter outcomes ​
Click to expand...

That's very interesting Shawn. So did that guy repeat the experiments to disprove the results? I'm guessing not.

Again, a bunch of nay saying and no science. And do please remember, I'm not trying to claim Courtney is correct and Ballist Wave Theory. I'm just saying Fackler was wrong about all handgun bullets only doing crush damage.

WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL TO EXPLAIN IS: If Fackler was right about the limits of handgun bullet wounding, why are handgun hunters getting drastically different results?

It seems you're completely incapable of seeing this subject logically, and would rather continue to stand behind dogma of Fackler's ballistic cult, than accept he was simply incorrect with some his assumptions. He and his "associates" apparently then spent decades trying to discredit and dismiss anyone with research that suggested anything other than what he had proclaimed was possible and impossible. And he used the bully pulpit of the Wound Ballistics Review to do so.

Seeing the articles in that publication, after being exposed to evidence directly contradicting it, it is impossible for me to objectively consider these claim by Fackler as anything other than incorrect. It is also impossible for me to accept that he did not become aware that his assumptions were incorrect. But he did not admit this. So the only logical conclusion I can come to is that he knowingly lied, manipulated and deceived anyone and everyone that mattered, in order to remain the "expert" in this subject.

If you don't see it that way, I simply do not care. That is precisely how I see the entire situation. And unless you can prove to me that the results handgun hunters have had are all faked and fraudulent, you will not convince me otherwise.
 
WrongHanded said:
WHAT YOU CONTINUE TO FAIL TO EXPLAIN IS: If Fackler was right about the limits of handgun bullet wounding, why are handgun hunters getting drastically different results?
Click to expand...
This is your claim (handgun hunters). It's not mine to prove.

A few post back, I suggested you post the evidence you have and we'd discuss it.
 
Shawn Dodson said:
This is your claim (handgun hunters). It's not mine to prove.

A few post back, I suggested you post the evidence you have and we'd discuss it.
Click to expand...

Buddy, if you have spent as much time on this forum as I'm guessing you have, and conveniently "missed" all of the handgun hunting posts, that's well and truly your problem. I'm not here to prove anything to you. You're the one trying (and failing) to prove false and outdated claims to me. All I'm doing is pointing out to everyone else reading this, how illogical your arguments are, and the lack of real science you're providing in your efforts to prove what simply and obviously is not true.
 
WrongHanded said:
Buddy, if you have spent as much time on this forum as I'm guessing you have, and conveniently "missed" all of the handgun hunting posts, that's well and truly your problem. I'm not here to prove anything to you. You're the one trying (and failing) to prove false and outdated claims to me. All I'm doing is pointing out to everyone else reading this, how illogical your arguments are, and the lack of real science you're providing in your efforts to prove what simply and obviously is not true.
Click to expand...
It's not my responsibility to run around this forum looking for evidence to support your claim (handgun hunters).

It's your claim. It's your turn to put up.
 
WrongHanded said:
Again, a bunch of nay saying and no science.
Click to expand...
No. Just a fair critique of some bad analysis.

WrongHanded said:
You're the one trying (and failing) to prove false and outdated claims to me.
Click to expand...
Your opinion. Why harp on it? One more time,
  • All handgun rounds sometimes work, and all occasionally fail.
  • What matters most is what is hit, and that is largely a matter of chance.
  • Many law enforcement agencies started transitioning from the.40 to the 9 some years ago, and few if any have retraced their steps.
The only other things that really count are the rapidity of controlled fire to provide an adequate chance of hitting critical body parts in a moving target timely, whether the gun can be carried all day, and how quickly and brought into play.. Two of those things effectively limit us to handguns.

Of course, we have to balance the different measures of merit. A .44 Magnum gives us very good terminal performance, and it's a fine hunting round, but for defense against humans, it falls short in other parameters.

WrongHanded said:
All I'm doing is pointing out to everyone else reading this, how illogical your arguments are, and the lack of real science you're providing in your efforts to prove what simply and obviously is not true.
Click to expand...
You may believe that you are doing that, but you are missing the mark. Some of us know what "real science" is.
 
Kleanbore said:
Your opinion. Why harp on it? One more time,
Click to expand...
One more time

"Now your turn if the wound channel isn't significantly larger than the projectile at handgun velocity, why is the wound channel diameter (before you head for that rabbit hole) much larger when a hard cast 158gr .358 SWC is fired at 1450 fps than it is at 850 fps?
Why do deer not run as far with the 1450 fps round even though both were complete pass thru?
Why does game sometimes drop DRT from bullets at handgun velocity even without direct CNS damage from the bullet?"
 
Kleanbore said:
Some of us know what "real science" is.
Click to expand...
Questioning science is how you do science.
One serious problem with the assertion that permanent wound channel of pistols equals expanded bullet depth.
Is the equation you are using to prove it looks something like.
.451= yeah about that big
 
Shawn Dodson said:
It's not my responsibility to run around this forum looking for evidence to support your claim (handgun hunters).

It's your claim. It's your turn to put up.
Click to expand...

I'm going to make this clear. I've seen the evidence disproving Fackler's concept. I've explained how others (you included) can easily attain the same or similar evidence simply by asking handgun hunters for it. I do not care what you personally continue to believe.

If I provided this evidence to you, you would not thank me. You would not admit that you were wrong and that Fackler was wrong. You would either disappear, only to reappear at some point in the future spouting the same things. Or you would create strawman arguments or use logical fallacies to try and question the evidence.

Examples would be claiming that deer don't have arms, or that the tissues of every living big game animal wee somehow different from human tissues. Or you would argue that there was some magical threshold on velocity or energy that you cannot quantify, and then suggested we'd all have to carry .44 magnums to see these results in defensive shooting.

Zealots don't change. The evidence is easily attainable, you just refuse it.
 
Kleanbore said:
Of course, we have to balance the different measures of merit. A .44 Magnum gives us very good terminal performance, and it's a fine hunting round, but for defense against humans, it falls short in other parameters.
Click to expand...

And right on cue, here's that cartridge strawman I was mentioning.
 
WrongHanded said:
I'm going to make this clear. I've seen the evidence disproving Fackler's concept.
Click to expand...
What was it? More importantly what is it that you believe materially incorrect in Fackler's findings, and how might it matter in handgun self defense against humans?
WrongHanded said:
Examples would be claiming that deer don't have arms, or that the tissues of every living big game animal wee somehow different from human tissues.
Click to expand...
Small deer, large deer and elk, American antelope, and greater kudu do differ from the human animal. And the needs of the hunter are different. The hunter wants to kill his quarry without having to track it very far. If one shot works, great. In self defense, the objective is to cause a moving attacker to cease an attack immediately, and the defender cannot afford to wait to ascertain whether one shot was sufficient.
WrongHanded said:
And right on cue, here's that cartridge strawman I was mentioning.
Click to expand...
What? No informed person would recommend the .44 magnum for self defense in urban areas. Nor does the defender care about such things as pressure waves, temporary cavities, and so on. That's the domain of the ammunition developers.
 
Kleanbore said:
What was it? More importantly what is it that you believe materially incorrect in Fackler's findings, and how might it matter in handgun self defense against humans?
Click to expand...

Seriously? Really? You've read through all of this debate, every post, and are asking these questions as if you have no idea what I mean? :alien:
 
Kleanbore said:
What was it? More importantly what is it that you believe materially incorrect in Fackler's findings, and how might it matter in handgun self defense against humans?
Click to expand...
Here's just one
Fackler's main gotcha argument against Courtney's ballistic pressure wave and remote wounding is that the amplitude of a lithotripter's wave (what they use to break up kidney stones) is 4 times that of a bullets. Not sure that's true, but let's run with it.
A lithotripter uses sound pressure waves which have virtually no mass, verses a bullets hydrodynamic/hydrostatic which has quite a bit of mass.
It's kinda like saying running into a car at 20 mph can't cause blunt force trauma because I was doing 80 and hit a bug and didn't get a bruise.
 
Last edited:
WrongHanded said:
Seriously? Really? You've read through all of this debate, every post, and are asking these questions as if you have no idea what I mean?
Click to expand...
Trying to recall some of it...
  • You have complained that Fackler's analysis is old (so, in fact, is the Bernoulli Theorem)
  • You said that his assertion that lung shots are not important in effective physical stops is "stupid"--but you did not provide a reason
  • You opined that as slight increase in bleeding from the capillaries of a punctured lung would be meaningful in stopping a charging attacker at close range
  • You said that the little lines emanating into the surface of the temporary cavity in gel somehow show permanent damage
  • You misunderstood the import of the Ellifritz data, and believed that the small calibers "outperformed" the large
  • You cited, again this year, a paper that does not stand on its own in terms of validity, and that refers to other sources that contradict it
  • You keep bringing hunting into it
  • You put a lot of stock in "per round" effectiveness, apparently indicating a belief in one-shot encounters
  • You refuse to accept the observations of forensic medical personnel who say that there is little discernible difference in wounding by different service rounds
Now, that last one is certainly counterintuitive to the lay person. If there were a difference in larger bullets, would it outweigh the advantages of reduced recoil?

I am not a student of the mechanics of handgun wounding effectiveness. I'm willing to accept, in principle, the conclusions of the pros. Is there a "threshold" for remote wounding? As an engineer, I doubt it. But I do not care.

For me, these things matter:
  • Today's premium bullets in the 9 meet accepted specs, some of which are not likely to be meaningful to me
  • I can do better in training drills with a 9 than with larger calibers, and that seems to be true with a lot of other students
  • Organizations that have adopted the 9 have become more numerous, and they seem to be sticking with it
 
Kleanbore said:
Trying to recall some of it./QUOTE]
Click to expand...

You have complained that Fackler's analysis is old (so, in fact, is the Bernoulli Theorem)

And outdated. And based on slow moving low energy bullets. And wrong.

You said that his assertion that lung shots are not important in effective physical stops is "stupid"--but you did not provide a reason

I did repeatedly. It's up thread. You actually use it in your next point, except I said nothing about a "slight increase". Those are you words.

You opined that as slight increase in bleeding from the capillaries of a punctured lung would be meaningful in stopping a charging attacker at close range

Again, I never said "slight increase". The goal is either blood loss or CNS. If a person is choosing to shoot for the thoracic cavity, that rules out CNS. The more blood loss the faster, the better. You can argue faster followup shots, but the first one from the holster is the most important, and by then the target will only be closer. The bigger the target (angularly speaking) the less recoil recovery is a factor. I already explained all this.

You said that the little lines emanating into the surface of the temporary cavity in gel somehow show permanent damage

I said those were permanent to the gel block. And they're not "lines", they're tears. The block was torn, and significantly so. But more significantly with more powerful cartridges than with the 9mm loads.

You misunderstood the import of the Ellifritz data, and believed that the small calibers "outperformed" the large

I didn't misunderstand it. I just ignored it. Like you have repeatedly ignored information I have presented. But do I believe smaller calibers outperform larger ones? At the same velocity, with the same or similar bullet design, I believe the opposite is true. You're the one pushing the narrative that smaller calibers are just as good.

You keep bringing hunting into it
You put a lot of stock in "per round" effectiveness, apparently indicating a belief in one-shot encounters

I don't believe in a one shot encounter. I believe that more velocity and more energy creates a larger wound. I believe this because I have seen evidence of it, and the concept makes perfect sense.

You refuse to accept the observations of forensic medical personnel who say that there is little discernible difference in wounding by different service rounds

I don't refuse to accept they have seen what they have seen. I refuse to accept that all handgun bullets only crush tissue directly in front of them, because that is all they have seen. Again, because handgun hunters know better.

Now, that last one is certainly counterintuitive to the lay person. If there were a difference in larger bullets, would it outweigh the advantages of reduced recoil?

Would a smaller bullet with less recoil outweigh the advantages of a larger bullet's frontal surface area? Because that's how you end up carrying a .22lr.

Oh and as far as sighting that paper again, you're wrong. The paper I sighted this year was not the paper I sighted last year. The one I sighted last year was, this time, sighted by mavracer. So you're wrong on that too.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
Caliber of choice
2
Replies
48
Views
2K
Jeb21
J
W
  • Locked
Wrong caliber gun
Replies
19
Views
2K
Jim K
J
Hartkopf
  • Locked
All Popular Calibers Have Been Outlawed. What Oddball/Obsolete Caliber Do You Carry
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
127
Views
6K
The Happy Kaboomer
The Happy Kaboomer
Browning
  • Locked
  • Poll
General HG Caliber For Field Use/Handgun Hunting/BUG For Bow Hunting/Hiking/Rural
2 3
Replies
69
Views
3K
19-3Ben
1
B
  • Locked
Why do some handgun cartridges cost so much?
Replies
17
Views
941
ezypikns
E
Back
Top