What happened to 40 caliber?

[Shawn Dodson]

Doesn't mention wound diameter. Only seems to address penetration depth as compared to 10% ballistic gel. Not what I asked. I'm asking about wound diameter. Which was clearly larger than the bullet due to fragmentation.

My point here is that 20+ years ago, these's experts do not seem to be address wound diameter, or the variance in wound diameter between cartridges. Doesn't seem like they were interested.

...The other mechanism, transient radial displacement of tissue surrounding the bullet path (the temporary cavity), is too small when caused by the expanding handgun bullet to have a reliable effect in the adult human...

...The stretch of the first part the bullet hole to about the diameter of an orange (see Fig. One) is easily absorbed by the elasticity of the tissues in most parts of the human torso. These flexible tissues act much like a shock absorber....

--Fackler, Martin L., M.D., Police Handgun Bullet Selection", WBR V1N3, pp. 32-37


Gelatin is the only tissue simulant reported from which both permanent and temporary cavities can be measured. It is sufficiently elastic to allow the edges of the permanent cavity to return to their original position after being stretched by temporary cavitation, but the limits of elasticity are overcome during the stretch so that the gelatin is fractured. The resultant radially oriented cracks correlate with temporary cavity diameter.

--Fackler, Martin L., M.D., Malinowski, John A., B.S., "The Wound Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", JTrauma V28N6, 1985, p. 522-529

 

[mavracer]

Why do medical examiners state that they cannot tell the difference between bullet wounds of different calibers based on the tissue damage they observe?

Because we don't live in cartoon world where you can see the bullet hole so you can't measure the hole in soft tissue with any degree of accuracy.

 

[BJung]

Where did this rabbit hole take a turn? What's the OP? Again, I think the is not popular because most shooters follow the marketing and what's popular. Whether the 40cal is better than the 9mm with new bullets is irrelevant because there will be a long list of facts to support each argument. Each side will believe they made the best decision.

 

[WrongHanded]

...The other mechanism, transient radial displacement of tissue surrounding the bullet path (the temporary cavity), is too small when caused by the expanding handgun bullet to have a reliable effect in the adult human...

...The stretch of the first part the bullet hole to about the diameter of an orange (see Fig. One) is easily absorbed by the elasticity of the tissues in most parts of the human torso. These flexible tissues act much like a shock absorber....

--Fackler, Martin L., M.D., Police Handgun Bullet Selection", WBR V1N3, pp. 32-37


Gelatin is the only tissue simulant reported from which both permanent and temporary cavities can be measured. It is sufficiently elastic to allow the edges of the permanent cavity to return to their original position after being stretched by temporary cavitation, but the limits of elasticity are overcome during the stretch so that the gelatin is fractured. The resultant radially oriented cracks correlate with temporary cavity diameter.

--Fackler, Martin L., M.D., Malinowski, John A., B.S., "The Wound Profile: A Visual Method for Quantifying Gunshot Wound Components", JTrauma V28N6, 1985, p. 522-529

It's the SAME stuff over and over again. Look at the speed of the cartridges pre-expansion!! Calculate the energy. It's about 350ftlbs at most based on the cartridges they show in the diagram. This is from 1992, before .40S&W ever existed. They came to a conclusion based on what was happening with old and relatively weak cartridges and then never bothered to contest their findings when more powerful cartridges came into being.

I ask you again, where is the testing with the cartridges pushing 500ftlbs like the ones I mentioned earlier? This is obviously where the disparity is coming from between what you believe, and what handgun hunters are seeing. Stay at the bottom of the power scale and you don't see the effects more powerful handgun cartridges can have, then you claim those effects cannot exist.

Though in that edition of WBR (in that article actually) they stated that a bullet that expands to a larger diameter is better, and apparently believed penetration of 12-20" was preferable, preferring 20 or more over less than 12. So I guess this was back before they cared about over-penetration dangers.

It's outdated information based on outdated cartridges and technology.

 

[Kleanbore]

It's outdated information based on outdated cartridges and technology.

What is?

 

[WrongHanded]

What is?

The article he linked to.

 

[Barbaroja]

Hey you guys remember about 4 pages back when this was an interesting thread about .40 S&w? That was fun. What a train wreck.

anyways…….. I’m in the market for a .40 because I like trying different stuff and they are cheap right now.

 

[Robbins290]

Hey you guys remember about 4 pages back when this was an interesting thread about .40 S&w? That was fun. What a train wreck.

anyways…….. I’m in the market for a .40 because I like trying different stuff and they are cheap right now.

Look at the Glock gen 5. You can get a purple label for about 450. Amazing shooter for a 40. And I agree. Caliber debates are soo stupid. Specially the handgun ones. THEY ALL SUCK, compared to rifle rounds.

 

[Kleanbore]

They came to a conclusion based on what was happening with old and relatively weak cartridges and then never bothered to contest their findings when more powerful cartridges came into being.

With what specific conclusions do you find fault, and why?

Human anatomy has not changed. Ammunition technology has changed markedly.

Today's handgun ammunition specifications for law enforcement reflect modern technology and take into account the properties of today's common barrier materials.

For handguns, current premium 9mm ammunition is widely recommended and has been adopted by every US Federal agency and almost all international law enforcement organizations.

 

[WrongHanded]

With what specific conclusions do you find fault, and why?

Human anatomy has not changed. Ammunition technology has changed markedly.

Today's handgun ammunition specifications for law enforcement reflect modern technology and take into account the properties of today's common barrier materials.

For handguns, current premium 9mm ammunition is widely recommended and has been adopted by every US Federal agency and almost all international law enforcement organizations.

I already clearly explained that in my previous post:

It's the SAME stuff over and over again. Look at the speed of the cartridges pre-expansion!! Calculate the energy. It's about 350ftlbs at most based on the cartridges they show in the diagram. This is from 1992, before .40S&W ever existed. They came to a conclusion based on what was happening with old and relatively weak cartridges and then never bothered to contest their findings when more powerful cartridges came into being.

I ask you again, where is the testing with the cartridges pushing 500ftlbs like the ones I mentioned earlier? This is obviously where the disparity is coming from between what you believe, and what handgun hunters are seeing. Stay at the bottom of the power scale and you don't see the effects more powerful handgun cartridges can have, then you claim those effects cannot exist.

Though in that edition of WBR (in that article actually) they stated that a bullet that expands to a larger diameter is better, and apparently believed penetration of 12-20" was preferable, preferring 20 or more over less than 12. So I guess this was back before they cared about over-penetration dangers.

It's outdated information based on outdated cartridges and technology.

But I'll briefly explain it for you again. The results they found with those cartridges (which are comparatively weak compared to what is available today, or even the .357 magnum and 10mm available back then) led them to believe that handgun bullets only crush tissue to about the diameter of the wound track. Therefore the assumption was that all any handgun cartridge can do. Handgun hunters have found this to be false. Up the power level and you see different results.

More powerful cartridges make bigger wounds. Shawn seems not to believe that, but his belief is based on test results from what appears to be a very narrow data set of relatively weak cartridges.

I'm not sure why some people are having such a hard time getting this concept.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

Because we don't live in cartoon world where you can see the bullet hole so you can't measure the hole in soft tissue with any degree of accuracy.

Medical examiners usually push a rod through the bullet hole or measure the length of the wound path on x-ray.

 

[mavracer]

With what specific conclusions do you find fault, and why?

That there's a clear delineation between temporary wound channel and permanent wound channel and that the only wounding mechanism is permanent wound channel until you reach the magic 2000 fps.

Human anatomy has not changed. Ammunition technology has changed markedly.

If as the mantra goes that modern 9mm is as good as the 40 was that's actually pretty small compared to the 30 pounds the average man has gained since 1990.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

It's the SAME stuff over and over again. Look at the speed of the cartridges pre-expansion!! Calculate the energy. It's about 350ftlbs at most based on the cartridges they show in the diagram. This is from 1992, before .40S&W ever existed. They came to a conclusion based on what was happening with old and relatively weak cartridges and then never bothered to contest their findings when more powerful cartridges came into being.

What was true back then still rings true today.

BTW, .40 S&W was introduced in January 1990. Prior to that, the FBI developed its 10mm 180gr load propelled at 980 fps in 1988, which was the genesis of .40 S&W.

Energy is irrelevant.

I ask you again, where is the testing with the cartridges pushing 500ftlbs like the ones I mentioned earlier? This is obviously where the disparity is coming from between what you believe, and what handgun hunters are seeing. Stay at the bottom of the power scale and you don't see the effects more powerful handgun cartridges can have, then you claim those effects cannot exist.

Fackler and the FBI tested several .357 Magnum 125gr loads, many of them propelled at 1300-1400 fps. The results vary little from modern JHP handgun bullets. The slightly higher velocity doesn't substantially change wounding effects.

Though in that edition of WBR (in that article actually) they stated that a bullet that expands to a larger diameter is better, and apparently believed penetration of 12-20" was preferable, preferring 20 or more over less than 12. So I guess this was back before they cared about over-penetration dangers.

The FBI's maximum penetration depth of 18" isn't based on overpenetration concerns. The FBI concluded that the bullet will have probably exited the body after 18" of penetration and because of that, it didn't calculate wound volume beyond 18".

Whereas the IWBA recommends a mean penetration depth of 12.5-14 inches in bare gelatin, and 13-16 inches in gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth.

It's outdated information based on outdated cartridges and technology.

Modern premium defensive handgun ammo meets the terminal performance criteria established by IWBA back in the 1990s, and performs very well in actual shootings today.

 

[Kleanbore]

More powerful cartridges make bigger wounds.

Using duty ammunition? How much bigger? How would that affect ammunition effectiveness? By how much?

 

[mavracer]

Medical examiners usually push a rod through the bullet hole or measure the length of the wound path on x-ray.

Back on page 4 I posted
"There's always a lot of cherry picking and gaslighting that goes on in caliber wars add in good old human perception and cognitive bias and these mantras become accepted facts."

Thanks for proving my point

Cherry picking
Yes they can accurately measure length but the discussion is about the effects of width.

Cognitive bias
The rod is to better show path for a layperson, any X-ray tech (including a 16 year old, developing film for a Veterinarian)
Could simply use a ruler between entry and exit or entry and slug.
You can even measure how far a penny is they swallowed from the anus.
But I digress

 

[Shawn Dodson]

For those that are interested here's a link to the 1987 report "FBI Wound Ballistics Workshop, '9mm vs. .45 Auto'" which is posted on the Association of Firearms and Tool Mark Examiners website.

"Four of the eight [participants in the workshop] advised that there was no difference in wounding effects of either caliber [9mm and .45 ACP] given adequate penetration." -- page 3​

 

[WrongHanded]

Using duty ammunition? How much bigger? How would that affect ammunition effectiveness? By how much?

That's your argument as to why 9mm is just as effective? That I can't show you a list of data to prove it's not?

You know I can't possibly provide that data. And apparently neither can you guys, or you'd have done it already to prove your point.

What was true back then still rings true today.

BTW, .40 S&W was introduced in January 1990. Prior to that, the FBI developed its 10mm 180gr load propelled at 980 fps in 1988, which was the genesis of .40 S&W.

Energy is irrelevant.


Fackler and the FBI tested several .357 Magnum 125gr loads, many of them propelled at 1300-1400 fps. The results vary little from modern JHP handgun bullets. The slightly higher velocity doesn't substantially change wounding effects.


The FBI's maximum penetration depth of 18" isn't based on overpenetration concerns. The FBI concluded that the bullet will have probably exited the body after 18" of penetration and because of that, it didn't calculate wound volume beyond 18".

Whereas the IWBA recommends a mean penetration depth of 12.5-14 inches in bare gelatin, and 13-16 inches in gelatin covered by four layers of heavy denim cloth.


Modern premium defensive handgun ammo meets the terminal performance criteria established by IWBA back in the 1990s, and performs very well in actual shootings today.

My mistake on the .40S&W. I was thinking of the .357 Sig. Still, they don't seem to have included the watered down 10mm or the .40S&W in the article. Where are the autopsy results proving those cartridge only poke holes?

You say they tested .357 magnum? In people, or in the gel blocks that close back up so you can try and claim all the tearing doesn't matter?

Why do .357 magnums make holes larger than the bullet for handgun hunters? There's a disconnect here that you just don't seem to have any desire to address.

 

[WrongHanded]

Energy is irrelevant.

This is priceless by the way. Go tell that to a physicist. You can't accomplish anything without energy, so to say it is irrelevant is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Shawn Dodson]

This is priceless by the way. Go tell that to a physicist. You can't accomplish anything without energy, so to say it is irrelevant is absolutely ridiculous.

Priceless indeed.

"The belief that kinetic energy deposit in tissue is a fundamental wounding mechanism is very common and this assertion has been made by innumerable writers, most of whom have little or no understanding of either the physics or physiology involved. The popularity of this claim led me to devote an entire chapter in Bullet Penetration - Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma to explaining energy relationships and why there is no general direct relationship between energy and the trauma that leads to incapacitation. No attempt is made to cover all this material here, but the following paragraph briefly summarizes the "bottom line".

"Attempts to determine bullet effectiveness or assign wound trauma incapacitation by assessing bullet kinetic energy are doomed to failure for two interconnected reasons: 1) damage is done by stress (force), not energy. 2) an indeterminate, but usually large, amount of the bullet kinetic energy leads to tissue stresses that are not large enough to cause significant trauma (especially in handgun loads)."

--MacPherson, Duncan, "WOUND BALLISTICS MISCONCEPTIONS", Wound Ballistics Review, V2N3, 1996, pp. 42-43
​

 

[someguy2800]

I made this to sum up my thoughts about when people say that bullet technology has made 9mm as or more effective than 40.

 

[SDGlock23]

It's not difficult, really. We can't ever prove if one caliber would have been more effective in any given situation because we can't replay the situation and simply change out the caliber used. Common sense tells us that bigger bullets poke bigger holes and that velocity can make up some for lack of size, shoot water jugs with an arrow and then with a bullet. Both are lethal but which does more damage? That's energy. To say that energy is irrelevant is nonsense, without it, bullets wouldn't even leave the barrel. If energy means nothing than a 380 ACP from a 2" barrel is just as effective as a 357 Mag from a 6" barrel...and we all know they're vastly different animals. Both are lethal but they aren't the same.

I think the old saying which implies that all handguns are poor performers is really a poor way of looking at things, and it's wrong. If you hold to that mentality then it wouldn't matter if you carried a 9mm or a .40 or a .45, wouldn't matter if it was a 380 or a 357, "they all suck"...which is wrong. Such thinking leads people to carrying whatever is the cheapest and easiest to shoot, which is largely 9mm. Don't get me wrong, there are merits to higher capacity and ease of shooting, but it's also wrong to dismiss larger calibers simply because "handguns suck" which implies (incorrectly) that they're all the same, which isn't so.

 

[WrongHanded]

Priceless indeed.

"The belief that kinetic energy deposit in tissue is a fundamental wounding mechanism is very common and this assertion has been made by innumerable writers, most of whom have little or no understanding of either the physics or physiology involved. The popularity of this claim led me to devote an entire chapter in Bullet Penetration - Modeling the Dynamics and the Incapacitation Resulting from Wound Trauma to explaining energy relationships and why there is no general direct relationship between energy and the trauma that leads to incapacitation. No attempt is made to cover all this material here, but the following paragraph briefly summarizes the "bottom line".

"Attempts to determine bullet effectiveness or assign wound trauma incapacitation by assessing bullet kinetic energy are doomed to failure for two interconnected reasons: 1) damage is done by stress (force), not energy. 2) an indeterminate, but usually large, amount of the bullet kinetic energy leads to tissue stresses that are not large enough to cause significant trauma (especially in handgun loads)."

--MacPherson, Duncan, "WOUND BALLISTICS MISCONCEPTIONS", Wound Ballistics Review, V2N3, 1996, pp. 42-43
​

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.

 

[WisBorn]

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.

 

[Kleanbore]

That's your argument as to why 9mm is just as effective? That I can't show you a list of data to prove it's not?

No.

You know I can't possibly provide that data. And apparently neither can you guys, or you'd have done it already to prove your point.

The preponderance of informed opinion on the subject is based on substantial data

 

[WrongHanded]

The preponderance of informed opinion on the subject is based on substantial data

Is it? Do you know that for certain? Tell me how wound diameter is measured, and be specific. Tell me how the total amount of wounding from a given GSW is measured and calculated. Please, share the scientific methods used, not just your blind faith.